Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 17th December. 1948, for the Christmas Recess—met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of William Thomas Adams, Esquire, Member for the Borough of Hammersmith (South Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABILITY PENSIONS

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now state what was the total amount paid by his Department, inclusive of all allowances, to pensioners whose disabilities were assessed at less than 100 per cent. in the years ended 31st March, 1939, and 31st March, 1948, respectively; and what was the average weekly payment in each year per pensioner assessed at less than the 100 per cent. rate.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): In respect of pensions from 50 per cent. to 95 per cent. the total amount paid in the financial year 1938–39 was £9,200,000 and £15,600,000 in 1947–48. The average weekly payments were £1 8s. 4d. and £1 17s. 8d., respectively. For pensions from 20 per cent. to 45 per cent. the total payments were £9,100,000 in 1938–39 and £21,200,000 in 1947–48. The average payments were 12s. 7d. and 16s. 10d., respectively.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that this is No. 1 Question on the Order Paper, and is it not also No. 1 obligation on the Government to secure an adequate pension for these men? Is he aware that the solution for the few is not the solution for the many, and that there are many today who are sadly in need of assistance?

Mr. Marquand: If the hon. Member will make a little calculation after he has had time to read these figures, he will see that the increase in both cases was 33 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Emergency Commissions (Marriage Allowance)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for War whether married officers with emergency commissions who agreed to stay in the Army until the end of the state of emergency are eligible for the recently announced 6s. per diem additional allowance for those married officers not living in provided quarters.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): On the assumption that my hon. Friend is referring to married officers with emergency commissions who volunteered to defer their release until general demobilisation, the answer is "Yes."

Food Supplies, Germany (Subsidies)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements to enable members of His Majesty's Forces and their wives in Germany when purchasing at N.A.A.F.I. stores those articles of food that are subsidised directly or indirectly in this country, to share the full benefit of current subsidies.

Mr. M. Stewart: Rations for soldiers and their families in B.A.O.R. are not supplied by N.A.A.F.I. but by the R.A.S.C. Only a few special foodstuffs, such as sauces and baby foods, are sold by N.A.A.F.I. Those foodstuffs whose prices are subsidised in the United Kingdom, whether supplied by the R.A.S.C. or by N.A.A.F.I. are supplied to soldiers' families in Germany at prices which pass on to them the full benefit of the subsidies.

Detained Soldier, Colchester

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War why Richard Arthur Elliott was detained for over two months in Colchester Barracks without being brought to trial; and with what offences he was charged.

Mr. M. Stewart: This case is sub judice, these questions being, as my hon. Friend is aware, at present the subject of inquiry by the High Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Basildon Development Corporation

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning who have been appointed to the Basildon Development Corporation; and when the work of development will begin.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): My right hon. Friend has not yet set up the Development Corporation but he expects to do so this month. My hon. Friend will appreciate that much preliminary work in the appointment of staff and preparation of plans will be necessary on the part of the Corporation before they can begin actual development.

Tree Felling (Licences)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, in view of the fact that 250 cubic feet of timber, involving as many as eight trees, can be felled without licence, that much of the countryside is being denuded of woodlands as a result and that local authorities are slow to use their powers by making Tree Preservation Orders, he will extend the licence system and circularise to local authorities an instruction to use existing powers in this connection more fully.

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend is not aware that the arrangements are having the results suggested but he will be glad to consider any evidence that my hon. Friend may care to bring forward. A circular has already been prepared and will shortly be issued to local authorities which, amongst other things, advises them to take effective action to protect amenity trees and woodlands.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my hon. Friend look particularly at the position in Bedfordshire where the County Council is setting an excellent example in preserving trees throughout the county? Will he commend that example to other local authorities so that, if possible, they may copy it?

Mr. King: That, in effect, is what the circular does.

Colonel Dower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if a licence has to be obtained in nearly every case where a small amount of timber is to be felled, there will be a very great deal of hardship and delay and a greatly increased staff will be needed to deal with it?

Mr. King: The sense of my reply is in accordance with what the hon. and gallant Member says.

Mr. Vane: Will the hon. Gentleman issue instructions to local authorities to ensure that these powers are not abused by over-enthusiastic local authorities to interfere with the proper management of commercial woodlands?

Mr. King: The hon. Member had better await the circular.

Hope Valley (Cement Works)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has considered the apprehensions expressed to him by the hon. Member for Bedford and others at his decision, following the public inquiry into the proposals of Messrs. Earles to extend their cement works in the Hope Valley; and whether, in view of its adverse effect on the amenities of a potential national park as well as on farming interests in the district, he will reconsider his verdict and in the meantime make a public statement.

Mr. King: The decision to allow an extension of these works was taken after very full consideration of all points of view and after a local inquiry lasting three days. My right hon. Friend is fully satisfied that the expansion of the works is necessary in the interests of national cement production, that the new works will in many ways be an improvement on the existing works, and that the conditions imposed for the landscaping and after-treatment of the land will minimise the adverse effects, if any, on the amenities of the area.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reply he has just given will not satisfy large numbers of people in the country who believe that the decision of the Minister is a definite and heavy blow at the National Parks movement? Is he further aware that to make the top end of the Hope Valley derelict for 117 years, as will be the case if this project goes through, is an extremely anti-social thing?

Mr. King: This is a decision the necessity for which we naturally regret, but we must have regard to the overwhelming demand for cement and, subject to reasonable after-care of the land—which we believe we have provided in this case—we are bound to consider that, too.

Mr. Molson: Has the Minister issued, or if not, will he issue an explanation of the decision he has come to; a reasoned statement of why he has arrived at this conclusion after the inquiry?

Mr. King: A very full Press report was issued and it contained much of the information which the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Lipson: Can my hon. Friend say whether there was any alternative put forward to this factory which would have produced the cement required? Also, could he not place in the Library a copy of the evidence given by both sides at the inquiry, because there is great concern, and hon. Members would like to form their own judgment?

Mr. King: On the first point, there is an overall shortage of cement and we want as far as possible to develop all practicable proposals. I will certainly consider the second point.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the representations made by the National Trust, and is he aware of the grave anxiety that the National Trust entertains on this matter?

Mr. King: Yes, we have given full consideration to all those representations and to many others on the other side, too. We have tried to strike a balance.

Mr. Keeling: is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in deciding to destroy the beauty of this lovely valley for ever, the Government did not even give reasons for rejecting the alternatives? Does he think that is fair and just?

Mr. King: I must submit that we have not destroyed the natural beauty for ever, and if careful study is given to the plan it will be found that great care has been taken as far as is possible—and to a large extent it is possible—to preserve that beauty.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and in spite of the fact that I am sailing to America tomorrow for some long time, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the first opportunity on my return.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Industrial Diseases

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Minister of National Insurance, what progress he has made in examining the prospects of bringing within the benefits of the Industrial Injuries Act workmen disabled by pneumoconiosis or silicosis prior to the commencement of that Act.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I regret that I cannot yet make any further statement on this matter.

Mr. Hynd: May we take it as an assurance that the Minister is carrying out the promise he has made on several occasions to the House to give this question sympathetic consideration, and can we expect a reasonably early statement on it?

Mr. Griffiths: I am examining the matter. I did promise that I would try to reach a conclusion by the middle of this year, and that promise still stands.

Share Fishermen

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he has received the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the preliminary draft of the National Insurance (Mariners) (Amendment) Regulations, 1948; and whether he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir, I have received the Committee's report and have accepted their recommendations. The report and draft regulations, revised accordingly, are being laid today and copies will be placed in the Vote Office as soon as they are available.

Mr. Marshall: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the report bears out the spirit of the answers he has given in this House?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, the broad attempt of the report will be to bring these share fishermen into Class I for the purpose of the National Insurance Act, and to make special recommendations governing the payment of unemployment benefit. I would not like to summarise this; it will be set out fully in the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Disabled Persons, Southend

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of persons in Southend who are registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act; the number of such persons who are unemployed; and what special steps are being taken in the area to provide additional work for the disabled.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Two thousand six hundred and fifty, of whom 440 were unemployed on 15th November last. Continuous efforts are being made to find employment for the disabled, and I have invited disablement advisory committees to co-operate with my local offices in this task.

Staple Industries (Recruitment)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the results of the campaigns to recruit more workers for the coalmining, textile and agricultural industries during 1948; and what further steps he is considering for the year 1949.

Mr. Isaacs: The labour forces of these industries showed the following net increases in 1948 after the replacement of wastage: Coalmining, 8,000; Textiles, 32,000 (to end-November); Agriculture, 42,000 (to end-November). The measures taken in 1948 will be continued this year.

Mr. John Lewis: Can the Minister say why there has not been a greater increase in the number of people who have gone into the textile mills; can he give some reason for it and say whether, in his view, it is due to lack of incentive or to difficulties regarding the methods employed in recruiting?

Mr. Isaacs: That is completely foreign to the Question itself. If my hon. Friend will put that question down, I will try to reply to it.

Poles

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour how many Poles leaving higher and ordinary schools, respectively, have failed to be placed in work owing to inadequate knowledge of English in the first and last six months of 1948 respectively;


and what proportion these are of all those leaving Polish schools in this country.

Mr. Isaacs: The available records do not enable me to give the information in the precise form asked for. At the end of December there were 232 of these young people registered for employment, of whom 71 had come on to the register during that month.

American Forces (Civilian Employees)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the dismissal of a shop steward by the American Commanding Officer at Burtonwood, Lancashire; and in the interests of industrial peace, what steps is he taking to prevent trade union discrimination towards civilian employees of the American forces stationed in Britain.

Mr. Isaacs: This man was discharged on grounds of redundancy before his appointment as a shop steward had been notified to the Commanding Officer. I understand that he has since obtained other employment. There was no question of trade union discrimination and at a meeting held under the auspices of my Department the Commanding Officer and the trade union have now made arrangements for joint discussion of any matters of mutual interest arising in future.

Lord John Hope: In view of the wording of the Question, may I ask what conceivable interest a Communist can have in the maintenance of industrial peace?

Control of Engagement Order

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of His Majesty's Government's support of Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he proposes to withdraw the Control of Engagement Order.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the adhesion of His Majesty's Government to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to Article 24 of which everyone has the right to free choice of employment, an early declaration will be made of the revocation of the Control of Engagement Order.

Mr. Isaacs: I would ask the hon. Members to await the reply to be given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regarding the character of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

NATIONAL SERVICE REGISTRATIONS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now make a statement on the age of call-up during 1949 and 1950.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state which age groups he proposes to call up for National Service during the present year.

Mr. Isaacs: There will be four registrations this year. The age of call-up during 1949 will, therefore, remain unchanged at a little above 18 years and three months. I have already announced that the first registration will take place on 26th February. The other registrations will take place on 21st May, 3rd September and 3rd December. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the age-classes to he registered on these dates.
I shall announce further registrations and any change in the age of call-up in 1950 as early as I can in order to give young men the longest possible notice. I think it will clear away certain misunderstandings if I add that, after registration, medical examinations are spread over the following three months. The oldest are examined first, so that all young men, whose cases present no special features, are called up at approximately the same age.
The exact date of call-up depends on a number of factors. For example, in order to fit young men into the places in the Services for which they are best suited, their qualifications, experience and aptitudes are taken into account as well as their preference for a particular Service. Normally an enlistment notice follows completion of medical examination after an interval of between four and six weeks.
If young men at school wish to be called up early in order to tit in their period of Service with the beginning of courses at the universities in the autumn of any year, their request will be granted.


This will also apply to teachers' training colleges and to full-time courses of appropriate standard at technical colleges. Boys who so desire are not called up before the end of the school term in which they are required to register or in which they reach the age of 18, whichever is the later.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the Minister for the full statement he has made about the age of call-up in 1949, may I ask him if he can now say whether it is still the intention of the Government to carry out the statement made in the Defence White Paper for 1948 to raise the age of call-up in 1950 to 18 years nine months?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, no actual decision has been taken, or can be taken, until the requirements of the Services at that period are known. At the moment I am happy to say we have it stabilised for the current year at 18 years three months and a little over.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many young men will be called up during 1949 as the result of following this procedure?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry to say I could not give that answer without notice but, making a guess, I think it is somewhere about 150,000.

Mr. Beechman: As it is now proposed to give educational facilities to those proposing to enter the inshore fishing industry, will the Minister take account of the fact that fishermen should be treated on the same lines as other people in regard to calling up and educational facilities?

Mr. Isaacs: If I understand the question aright, it relates to fishermen who are undergoing some educational course. The answer I have given applies not only to those who are going to the universities but to those wishing to go to technical colleges, and teachers' training colleges.

Colonel Lipton: Will the facilities be available for young men who wish to commence military duties at the age of 18?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, where it is desired to start Service earlier so that it will enable them to complete their Service in time to take up their after-Service spheres of activity such facilities will be available.

Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when calling up these young men, be careful that he sends them to the right places for enlistment, as several cases have been brought to my notice where young men have been sent to the wrong places of enlistment and have had to pay their railway fares back to London?

Mr. Isaacs: If our attention had been drawn to any such case we should have been glad to rectify any omission that had taken place.

Commander Noble: Could the Minister say to whom the 150,000 he has just mentioned refers because, from the figures we had before, that was to be the call-up for the Army alone?

Mr. Isaacs: I ventured a guess without looking at my papers. I would be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put a question to me, either on the Paper or privately, and I will give him the exact information.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the serious shortage of building labour in Scotland, does the Minister intend to call up any more people from the building industry to the Armed Forces?

Mr. Isaacs: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down that Question.

Following is the statement:

Men born between 1st January and 31st March, 1931—26th February, 1949.
Men born between 1st April and 30th June, 1931—21st May, 1949. 
Men born between 1st July and 30th September, 1931—3rd September, 1949.
Men born between 1st October and 31st
December, 1931—3rd December. 1949.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Electricity Supply

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated peak demand and peak capacity for electrical supply for this winter as compared with last in that part of Scotland which is administered by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Development Board.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The peak capacity of plant in the North of Scotland district for this winter is


220,000 kws. The maximum load recorded up to 12th January is 209,000 kws. including an export of 25,000 kws. to Central Scotland. Under extreme cold weather conditions the peak maximum demand is estimated to be 235,000 kws. The maximum load during the winter of 1947—48, was 194,000 kws., including export to central Scotland, and the peak capacity, 218,000 kws.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that in exceptional weather a deficiency is shown, would my hon. Friend say what steps are then taken to meet the demand?

Mr. Fraser: Spreading the load as far as we can in the industrial areas.

Mr. Rankin: Then the domestic consumer is not penalised in order to maintain a surplus?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. Indeed, in the area served by the North of Scotland Board there is not this great demand in excess of capacity.

Prison Officers' Clubs (Licences)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reconsider his decision not to allow prison officers' clubs in Scotland to be licensed for the sale of wines and spirits in addition to the beers and ciders now permitted, in view of the fact that prison officers' clubs in England and Northern Ireland are so licensed.

Mr. T. Fraser: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to change the existing rules in this matter.

Mr. Brown: Is there any earthly reason whatever why we should not treat these officers as grown-up men; and is there any reason why they should be any less free to order what they like than a citizen in a public house or we within the smoking room?

Mr. Fraser: Grown-up men in Scotland act rather differently from grown-up men in England.

Mr. Brown: Are we to understand that in those circumstances the export of Scotch whisky from Scotland to England is part of a deeply laid plot against this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES

Executive Positions

Mr. Drayson: asked the Prime Minister what provisions are included in contracts made with persons appointed by Ministers to executive positions on nationalised Boards for terminating these contracts before the final date of expiry of any agreement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Statutes establishing the Boards of socialised industries provide that either Regulations (as, for instance, in the case of the Electricity Authority and its Area Boards) or the relevant Instruments of Appointment (as in the case of the Transport Commission and its Executives) shall lay down the circumstances in which a Minister may terminate appointments to those Boards made by him or by his predecessors. In both types of case an office may be declared vacant in certain named contingencies, or if in the opinion of the appointing Minister the holder becomes unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties therein; or if he deliberately absents himself from such duties without permission.

Mr. Drayson: Then is it the opinion of the Prime Minister that a member of an area board might be unfit to continue holding office if he considers himself personally unfit to continue on the board of the Bank of England?

The Prime Minister: That is clearly quite a different question.

Revenue (Advertising)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Prime Minister if he will lay down as Government policy that, in all schemes of nationalisation where industries or services are taken over and run in the public interest, revenue shall not be obtained from activities in any way harmful to the public interest.

The Prime Minister: I am not clear exactly what my hon. Friend has in mind, but it is certainly the view of the Government that the socialised industries should refrain from activities which are harmful to the public interest.

Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to recommend to his colleagues responsible for nationalisation


to adopt, as part of Government policy, the relinquishing of the revenue obtained from drink advertisements in accordance with the policy pursued in relation to the Post Office? Will he recommend this policy in regard to the transport systems, particularly railway hotels and station restaurants?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that the Post Office ran hotels.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer forgo any revenue from drink?

Mr. James Hudson: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that when the report of the Licensing Commission was given to this House there was a recommendation in the minority report as to how loss of revenue might be avoided in dealing with drink? Will he take into account that minority report, as it was signed by a distinguished member of the Labour Party?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT0S (ADVISORY BODIES)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of all the Departmental or inter-Departmental advisory bodies of a central or national character whose membership consists wholly or partly of non-officials; what is the number and nature of similar local bodies; how many individuals may be appointed to each body; and whether they may be remunerated.

The Prime Minister: There are about 700 central or national bodies of the nature described. The compilation of the detailed information requested is not completed. When it is I will place a copy in the Library and inform the hon. Member. The collection of the information on central bodies has involved a great deal of work in Departments; the collection of similar information about local bodies would involve even more and would not be justified.

Sir William Darling: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that with these members of his 700 advisory bodies he is getting all the advice that the Government now require?

The Prime Minister: Our 700 advisory bodies to various undertakings, I think. are doing very useful work.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a feeling, certainly in Wales, that the Prime Minister is very badly advised in regard to some of these appointments? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of the fact that there is in Wales, after all, some talent and that we do not necessarily depend on two or three individuals to be appointed to every board and every commission?

The Prime Minister: 1 had not understood that there were only one or two Welshmen on these 700 boards.

DIVORCE LAW

Mr. Odey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the present state of the divorce law and make recommendations.

The Prime Minister: The Government are not prepared to recommend to His Majesty the appointment of a Royal Commission at the present time, but realise that this matter is one which must be kept under careful review.

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government accede to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and what changes they propose to initiate in British domestic and colonial legislation in order to bring such legislation into line with the principles laid down in the Universal Declaration.

The Prime Minister: I should perhaps explain the difference between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Draft Covenant of Human Rights. The Declaration is a statement of fundamental human rights and freedoms that the General Assembly has proclaimed as a common standard of achievement which all should strive to attain. The draft Covenant, on the other hand, is to be a legally binding Convention. It will contain specific obligations to secure the observance by all States that accede to it


of those rights and freedoms which can be expressed in such a form.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly in the form of a Resolution, the United Kingdom representative voting in its favour. There is no question of any separate act of accession by States, or of an obligation to give early legislative effect to any provision with which Kingdom or Colonial laws may at the moment be at variance. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government subscribe generally to the ideal embodied in the Declaration and will continue to work towards it.

Mr. Byers: Is the Prime Minister aware that that reply will cause very great concern among a number of people, many of them in this country, who hoped that this Declaration of Human Rights was going to be accepted by the Government as a standard for the future behaviour of all civilised nations? Is the Prime Minister saying now that we are merely going to pay lip service to it and not strive to get rid of the control of engagements and other things?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Member could not have listened to what I have said, because what he is stating is exactly the reverse of what I said. In fact, I stated precisely what he has suggested those people were hoping.

Mr. Byers: Then may I ask the Prime Minister if he will give a specific assurance that within a short measure of time our British and Colonial legislation will be brought into line with the standard of behaviour which is now accepted as the result of this charter?

The Prime Minister: I think, generally speaking, that-both here at home and in the British Commonwealth we approach more nearly to reaching these ideals than does any other country in the world.

Mrs. Leah Manning: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any hope, as the result of our adherence to this convention, that we shall get rid of all discrimination on grounds of sex in this country?

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are striving day and night to get rid of the closed shop?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be rather begging the question.

Mr. Berry: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the section in the Declaration where it is declared that a man is innocent until found guilty and ask the Secretary of State for War to see that his Department acts on these lines?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend had better put down a Question to the Secretary of State for War.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Article 24 of the Declaration lays down that everyone, without discrimination, has the right of equal pay for equal work; and can he give the House an assurance that the Government will work towards this a little more radically than they have worked up till now?

The Prime Minister: These declarations contain a great number of rights, but rights must always be considered also with regard to duties and when one is looking at the whole body of these rights one must see how far in given circumstances one must approach them. It is not, I think, accepted that every State will be able at once to realise all these ideals.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that one of the fundamental rights of mankind is to put an end entirely to the exploitation of man by man? Do the Tories and Liberals approve of that?

The Prime Minister: I think other things might be put into action also.

Mr. Byers: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall ask for a day to debate this matter, or raise it on the Adjournment.

WALES (COUNCIL)

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Lord President of the Council what further steps have been taken in connection with the setting up of a National Council for Wales; what invitation local authorities and other public bodies have received to submit names for the Prime Minister's consideration for seats on this council; and who has been selected as chairman.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As I informed the House on 24th November, it was not the intention to set up the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire until the New Year. The object of waiting was to enable the Government to take into account any further views which hon. Members and others might wish to convey, and I am glad to say that the reception which the scheme has had in Wales has been such as fully to justifiy the Government in proceeding with the proposal. At this preliminary stage, no invitations to serve on the Council or to submit names for consideration, have been issued, but we shall go ahead as quickly as is practicable. It will, however, take some time to complete the necessary consultations with Welsh local authorities and other bodies.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the question I put to the Prime Minister a few minutes ago when I said that there are more than one or two individuals in Wales, particularly in regard to the chairmanship of this body? If rumours are correct they are not very pleasant reading.

Mr. Morrison: That observation is really not in any way justified on the record of the Government. In making appointments the Government have remembered Wales, I think, more than any previous Government. In any case, there cannot be more than one chairman.

Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that excessive delay would be harmful now that the Principality has had the prospect held before it; and is he aware that there are people seeking delay simply to create opposition to the proposed Council?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is on a fair point. I think we have struck the happy medium between giving Wales an opportunity to express itself and that undue delay which would manifest itself in indecision.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of 180 authorities only about 12 have expressed their approval, about 60 said that this was better than nothing and more than 60 declined, while the rest expressed no opinion at all? In view of that, how can he say that the proposal has commended itself to the public opinion of Wales?

Mr. Morrison: That is a very unfair and biased summary of the opinions of local authorities. I am surprised at the hon. Member. The fact is that 79 local authorities have expressed themselves in principle in favour of the scheme and 64 against and, if we take the matter on a population basis, the numbers in favour are overwhelming.

SUMMER TIME (DATE)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord President of the Council if he has any statement to make on Summer Time in 1949.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have been asked to reply. The Government propose that Summer Time this year shall extend from 3rd April to 30th October. A draft of the Order in Council necessary under the Summer Time Act, 1947 will be laid before Parliament without delay.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Has the right hon. Gentleman given full consideration to the interest of food production, because especially in the Northern parts of the country, and in Scotland, this late Summer Time makes it very difficult for farmers to get in their produce? If he settles a term for a period of Summer Time, will he consider adding a little to the beginning and taking a little from the end, so that in any event it would cease by the first Sunday in October?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. One has to consider the balance of interests in this matter. This represents a reduction in the period of Summer Time as compared with 1948 and, in view of the requirements of industries other than agriculture, I think this represents a fair compromise between all the interests concerned.

Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late extension into October will impose a very severe handicap on Scottish producers because of our damp climate?

Mr. Ede: It is exactly the same period at the end as it was last year.

Mr. Gallacher: If Summer Time is to apply to Scotland, will the Minister be good enough to see that we get some Summer along with Summer Time?

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PUBLICITY)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Lord President of the Council what further steps he proposes to take to make the public aware of the crisis in economic affairs, to which reference was made in paragraph 30 of the Memorandum submitted to the O.E.E.C., Command Paper No. 7572.

The Chancellor the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have been asked to reply. The Government have made known to the public an unprecedented amount of information about our economic affairs. We propose to continue our policy and to maintain the efforts that we are constantly making to increase further its effectiveness.

Mr. Osborne: Why has not the Leader of the House replied to this Question, which was put to him? Only a few months ago he himself said that he was not aware of this crisis, so how could he expect the public to be aware of a crisis which he said did not exist? Why did he not reply to the Question?

Sir S. Cripps: Because I am responsible for the economic information which is given.

Mr. Osborne: Then why did the Lord President accept the Question?

Mr. Bramall: Is not a necessary first step towards carrying out the aim of the hon. Member the taking of a firm stand against the efforts of the Opposition to cut down expenditure on the information services of the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tribunal of Inquiry (Cost)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the taxpayer, to date, of the Tribunal of Inquiry at Church House. Westminster.

Sir S. Cripps: The costs so far ascertained amount to approximately £9,000, but not all the items have yet been brought to charge.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Chancellor realise that this money has been spent to show that certain persons are not fit or fitted to be Ministers of the Crown?

Sir S. Cripps: I prefer to wait until the report of the Tribunal is made before making comments.

"Plain Words" (Distribution)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of "Plain Words" have been distributed

Sir S. Cripps: One hundred and sixty-nine thousand.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Chancellor encourage Members of the Treasury Bench to read this book so that they may always prefer plain English to official jargon?

Sir S. Cripps: I have, and I hope that people who put down Questions will also read it.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could the Chancellor say how this Question could have been put in plainer English?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not suggesting that this Question is wrong but that other Questions are.

Purchase Fax

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has reconsidered the provisions of S.I., 1948, No. 2398, which relates to Purchase Tax on floor coverings; and what action he has taken to amend it.

Sir S. Cripps: In accordance with the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 13th December, I have carefully reconsidered this question. But I am not convinced of the necessity of amending this Order at present.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Chancellor call a conference of the various parties affected by this Order, with a view to trying to make an improvement in it.

Sir S. Cripps: There was discussion with all those affected by it before I arrived at my decision.

Mr. J. Lewis: Is the Chancellor aware that in a Debate in this House the Minister responsible for answering on behalf of the Government admitted that there was something wrong with it? In view of that how is the Chancellor able to reconcile his present statement with what was said previously by the Minister to whom I have referred.

Sir S. Cripps: I have made full inquiries and my conclusions are those which I have given.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that married women who have their wedding rings remodelled in order to be able to continue wearing them in later life are being charged 100 per cent. Purchase Tax on the wholesale value of the remodelled ring, even where no extra material is used; and whether he will consider amending the law in this respect.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. In such a case under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1945, tax is payable only on the jeweller's charge for remodelling the ring.

Mrs. Castle: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend consider altering this Section of the Act in order to help those married women who cannot afford to buy a new wedding ring when they out-grow their old one, and who when they try to "make do and mend" are taxed to the tune of 100 per cent.?

Sir S. Cripps: It would be a very small matter indeed, if it is only the charge for remodelling the ring.

Mr. Piratin: Would not the Chancellor adopt the same method here which operates in the case of fur garments, which are remodelled and no tax is charged?

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the case of one example which I sent him the tax was 10s. 6d. and that that is not a small amount to a working class woman?

Sir S. Cripps: It must have been a very excessive charge.

Entertainment Duty (Scottish Football League)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his negotiations with the Scottish Football League have now been concluded; and if he is now satisfied that the Entertainment Tax concessions in the 1946 and 1948 Budgets will be passed on at the gate to the spectators.

Sir S. Cripps: I have impressed upon the representatives of the Scottish football clubs, that my attitude on questions

of modifying indirect taxation was bound to depend upon whether remissions reached those for whom they were intended, and I have no doubt that they appreciated the significance of what I said.

Income Tax

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why officials of nationalised industries are not to be called upon to make detailed justifications of their expense allowances to the Inland Revenue authorities in the same way as employees of private firms.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member is misinformed. Officials of the nationalised industries will be dealt with in the same way as directors and employees generally.

Mr. Bower: Will they have to make individual returns of their expenses in exactly the same way as employees of private concerns?

Sir S. Cripps: In exactly the same way.

Mr. Baker White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds the Inland Revenue authorities agreed to recognise the Society for Cultural Relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as an educational charity, thus enabling it to reclaim Income Tax on contributions made under a deed of covenant.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot give information regarding the taxation treatment of individual cases.

Mr. Baker White: Does not the Chancellor consider that however desirable it may be in normal circumstances to encourage cultural relations between two countries, under conditions of the cold war, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has himself made frequent reference lately, it is highly undesirable to ask the British taxpayer to subsidise what is frankly pro-Soviet propaganda?

Sir S. Cripps: I still cannot give information on an individual tax case.

Mr. Molson: Was this decision taken by the Board of Inland Revenue without the intervention of the political chief of the department?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot even be told if there was a decision.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how far his regulations permit subscriptions and donations to political party funds or for other political purposes to be deducted as admissible trading expenses in computing profits for the purposes of Income Tax and Profits Tax;
(2) whether he is aware that circulars have been sent by the Midland Industrialists Advisory Council to company chairmen inviting contributions from their businesses for political purposes; how far his regulations permit such contributions to be admitted as trading expenses; and what steps are taken by Inspectors of Taxes to ensure that they are properly accounted for and do not escape tax liability.

Sir S. Cripps: I have seen the circular to which my hon. Friend refers. Subscriptions or donations by traders for political purposes are not permitted to be deducted in computing profits for the purposes of Income Tax or Profits Tax, and Inspectors of Taxes can be relied upon to challenge any such item which they find in examining a trader's accounts.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Chancellor aware that I hold in my hand evidence that the bulk of Conservative funds come not from contributions from individual collectors, but from industrial profits? Will he therefore take care to see that the Inland Revenue make sure that these are properly accounted for? Would it not be more honest if the Conservative Party appealed for funds under its own name?

Mr. Bramall: If a contribution is made accompanied by a slip saying that it is a contribution to fight against municipal trading when the letter to which it is attached shows that it is one to a fund for Conservative candidates, would that count as a donation to a political party?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put a specific case to me, and then I might be able to give him an answer.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the Chancellor arrange to have the evidence produced by the hon. Member circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would the Chancellor deny that Cooperative profits find their way into the treasury of the Socialist Party?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I have no knowledge of whether they do or do not.

Mr. J. Hudson: Is the Chancellor aware that the regulations regarding Income Tax on political party funds were made in the first place by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)? Has not the time come for some reconsideration of the plans which the right hon. Gentleman then made?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that they are quite satisfactory.

Imports (Luxuries)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the specific luxuries the import of which he has notified the French Government will in future be restricted or forbidden.

Sir S. Cripps: No statement such as the hon. Member mentions has been made to the French Government.

Special Contributions (Interest)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will include in the next Finance Bill a provision to deprive the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the power to charge interest on any special contribution which has not been assessed, and to require them to refund any interest already so charged.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Chancellor aware that the net yield obtainable on the money before assessment and payment is far less than the interest demanded? How can he defend a situation whereby the longer the Treasury is in arrear with the assessments the more interest they get and the more money the taxpayer loses?

Sir S. Cripps: This question was raised and was very effectively defended when the House of Commons put the provision into the Measure.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that the arrears of assessment are much greater than was ever hinted to the House of


Commons last summer, and, therefore, is not the position of the taxpayer much more difficult than anyone ever thought that it would be in this respect?

Sir S. Cripps: No. I cannot accept that statement at all.

Mr. Nicholson: A constituent of mine wished to pay something on account in order to avoid paying interest on his assessment for special contribution. The local tax office refused to give him any assistance and refused to tell him what he could do to avoid payment of interest. How does the Chancellor defend that position?

Sir S. Cripps: That seems to be quite wrong, and if the hon. Member will send me particulars I will have the matter looked into.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Chancellor aware that where contributions have been made on time his officials have in some cases not even taken the trouble to acknowledge their receipt?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: How has the Chancellor been able in this case to foreshadow his Budget statement?

Sir S. Cripps: That is a matter which the hon. Member will no doubt see when I come to make it.

Anglo-Egyptian Negotiations

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of sterling is involved in the renewal of the Financial Agreement with the Government of Egypt, originally signed in June, 1947; and to what extent our unrequited exports will be affected by this Agreement.

Sir S. Cripps: Financial negotiations with Egypt are still in progress and I am not yet in a position to make any statement about them.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that this considerable handicap to our economic recovery is no longer justified, and will he see that in any arrangements which he is initiating this economic recovery takes precedence over old war debts?

Sir S. Cripps: We shall bear all material matters in mind.

Balance of Payments (White Paper)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is going to publish the balance of payments White Paper for 1948.

Sir S. Cripps: I would ask the hon. Member to await the Economic Survey for 1949, which will be published in March.

Mr. Spearman: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that a consistent series of statistical data on this all-important subject should be available at regular intervals?

Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly consider that question.

University Grants

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what non-recurrent capital grants have been paid to the universities during each of the years 1945–49; what are the major projects involved; and what are the total sums received by each university individually over the same period.

Sir S. Cripps: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the rate of re-development is sufficient to look after the greatly increased body of students and incidentally to maintain the academic standards?

Sir S. Cripps: I think it is the greatest that can be achieved in the present economic circumstances.

Following is the answer:

The non-recurrent payments to the universities in each of the years referred to are as follow:



£


1945–46
620,895


1946–47
566,996


1947–48
1,920,508


1948–49 (to 14th January, 1949)
1,980,686

The principal projects covered by these grants are the purchase of sites and buildings, the erection of new buildings (including new teaching blocks for science


and technology and halls of residence) and the provision of new equipment.

The amounts paid to individual institutions have necessarily varied according to the opportunities for building and the degree of expansion of numbers in individual centres: the sums are as follow:



£


Birmingham University
292,485


Bristol University
230,521


Cambridge University
149,389


Durham University
504,011


Exeter University College
103,195


Hull University College
240,813


Leeds University
270,418


Leicester University College
213,902


Liverpool University
116,123


London University
1,283,348


Manchester University
148,851


Manchester College of Technology
6,000


Nottingham University
319,083


Oxford University
217,507


Reading University
215,645


Sheffield University
118,864


Southampton University College
138,058


University of Wales
185,756


Aberdeen University
44,404


Edinburgh University
34,958


Glasgow University
98,974


Glasgow Royal Technical College
1,958


St. Andrews University
154,822

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the new composition of the University Grants Committee.

Sir S. Cripps: I am circulating a list of the members of the University Grants Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

Sir Walter Moberly, K.C.B., D.S.O., Litt.D. (Chairman).
A. E. Trueman, Esq., D.Sc., F.R.S., F.G.S. (Deputy Chairman).
Professor E. D. Adrian, O.M., F.R.S., M.A., M.D., F.R.C.P.
Sir Charles Darwin, K.B.E.. M.C., F.R.S., Sc.D.
Miss D. Dymond, M.A.
H. L. Elvin, Esq., M.A.
E. James, Esq., M.A., D. Phil., M.Sc. H. S. Magnay, Esq., M.A.
Professor W. R. Niblett, B.A., B.Litt.
Professor P. S. Noble, M.A.
Professor D. Hughes Parry, M.A., LL.M.
Professor G. W. Pickering, M.B., F.R.C.P.
Professor E. K. Rideal, M.B.E., F.R.S. Professor H. G. Sanders, M.A., Ph.D. Professor J. C. Spence, M.C., M.D., F.R.C.P.
Sir Alexander Murray Stephen, M.C., B.A.
B. H. Sumner, Esq., M.A., F.B.A.
Miss Barbara Wootton, M.A.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Factories, Coatbridge

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the factories in the industrial estate at Coat-bridge will be in operation; and if any efforts have yet been made to find tenants for these units.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): The allocation of both factories has been approved in principle, and the prospective tenants are now engaged in final negotiations with Scottish Industrial Estates Limited. It may be possible for both factories to be in operation by about mid-1949, but the exact date will depend, among other things, on the requirements of the tenants.

Russia

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement on the progress of the trade talks with Russia.

Mr. Austin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding the Anglo-Soviet trade agreement negotiations and list the difficulties that have prevented its completion.

Mr. H. Wilson: The talks which began last May are still continuing and it would not be advisable to indicate the stage now reached in the negotiations.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that on general grounds these talks should be suspended until such time as the Berlin blockade has been lifted?

Mr. Piratin: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of steel rails with the necessary fishplates, nut and bolts, have been delivered to the U.S.S.R., under the trade agreement of December, 1947; and when the complete order of 35,000 tons is likely to be delivered.

Mr. H. Wilson: The total contracted for under Article II of the Agreement was 25,000 tons, not 35,000 tons. Of this quantity, I am informed that 22,480 tons of rails, together with appropriate accessories, have been delivered or are awaiting delivery. The remainder is due to be delivered very shortly.

Mr. Piratin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Soviet Government may, within the terms of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement of December, 1947, purchase raw materials such as rubber, within the sterling area.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Soviet Union is free to purchase for sterling any raw material in the sterling area whose export is not subject to control by the Government or Governments concerned.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it time that something was done to stop the export of potential war material to this aggressive State?

Clothes Rationing

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement on clothes rationing.

Mr. H. Wilson: My two advisory committees are meeting on 27th and 28th January, and I hope to make a statement shortly afterwards.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade why he has turned down the advice of the leading clothing manufacturers, that in their opinion there are sufficient supplies to end clothes rationing by 28th February?

Mr. Wilson: The leading clothing manufacturers, are, to say the least of it, divided on the question of whether clothes rationing should come to an end.

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that most export markets for many lines of clothing are approaching saturation point and that, in consequence, stocks are accumulating in this country, he will either terminate clothes rationing or drastically increase coupon values.

Mr. H. Wilson: I propose to make a statement on clothes rationing shortly, but I must remind the hon. Member that total exports of apparel, and even more of cloth, are still rising, and that wholesale stocks fell by about 25 per cent. in the period from May to November, 1948.

Industrial Buildings, Portsmouth

Major Bruce: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been made to him since 6th August, 1947, for certificates under Section 14 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for permission to erect industrial buildings having an aggregate floor space exceeding 5,000 square feet in the city of Portsmouth; and how many have been granted.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since 1st July, 1948, when the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, came into force, five applications have been made for certificates under Section 14 (4) for permission to erect industrial buildings having an aggregate floor space exceeding 5,000 square feet in the city of Portsmouth. Four of these applications have been granted and the fifth is at present under consideration.

Cotton Industry

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the statement made in his annual report, of which a copy has been sent to him, by the president of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation; and whether he will now take the necessary steps to consider favourably the re-opening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange.

Mr. H. Wilson: I have not received a copy of this report, but have seen a Press summary of it. When purchasing cotton, the Raw Cotton Commission are faced with currency difficulties in some markets and shortage of supplies or export restrictions in others. Whatever the arrangements for purchasing, these difficulties would exist, and I have no reason to suppose that the re-opening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, would assist matters in any way.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the leading personalities whose name was mentioned when the Liverpool Cotton Exchange was closed is a director of this new corporation that has now come out against it, and would he, therefore, himself reconsider the advisability of re-opening the Cotton Exchange at Liverpool and thus get over some of the handicaps that now exist?

Mr. Wilson: I do not think that major changes of policy, for which no case whatever exists, should depend on the change in view of a single individual.

Mr. Churchill: Why is it necessary to go on with this act of party spite which has been proved to cost us all so much?

Mr. Wilson: I was not aware that there was any party spite in this measure. If the cost to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is the high cost of cotton I would remind him of what he is probably already aware, that the price of wool has increased even more than cotton and that wool is bought in a free market.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the purposely deceptive last remark of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Anglo-Polish Agreement

Mr. Austin: asked the President of the Board of Trade details of the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement was signed in Warsaw on Friday, 14th January. It is for the five year term 1949 to 1953 inclusive and provides for supplies from Poland, on an increasing scale, of bacon, eggs, other agricultural products and timber. The Polish Government has also agreed to make in these years certain payments in sterling to go towards meeting our claims in respect of nationalised property and pre-war indebtedness. The Agreement will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible.

Mr. Austin: As there is no evidence yet of reactionary barnyard fowls objecting to being fed on grain from Eastern Europe, would the right hon. Gentleman press on with this and similar agreements as soon as he possibly can?

Mr. Wilson: We have already pressed on with this one and it was signed last week.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether cured herrings are specifically included in this Agreement?

Mr. Wilson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await publication of the

report, but subject to correction on this point, I rather think that herrings are included in the Agreement.

Sir T. Dugdale: May I ask whether onions are included in this Agreement, and whether the approval of the Minister of Agriculture was obtained?

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister if, in view of the importance and the great desirability of this Agreement a statement can be made in this House repudiating the slanders that have been made from time to time against the Polish Government and the Polish leaders?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that within the terms of this Agreement feedingstuffs, as opposed to bacon and eggs and so forth, are also being included, or can be?

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will await the report, which is being published in full.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Referring to a previous question, does that agreement apply to the importing of onions from Poland, and, if so, is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as the Minister of Agriculture ought to be, that hundreds of tons of British onions are at this moment unsold in our own country?

Mr. Wilson: Since I have already asked hon. Members to await the publication of the report perhaps, before he puts hypothetical supplementary questions on it the hon. Member will wait and see whether onions are included.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Arising out of that last remark, how can it be hypothetical when the Press said there was in fact provision for onions?

Mr. Beechman: While it is important and we should be pleased to have some bacon and eggs, would the Minister please bear in mind that it is most important to encourage farmers and smallholders to have pigs on their land?

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would put questions on this side of things to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Captain Crookshank: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade if we are


to take it in future that Press statements emanating from the Board of Trade about trade agreements are not to be believed?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Wilson: I said "Yes" three times. Perhaps I could not be heard because of the noise coming from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Churchill: The question asked was whether we are to take it that statements emanating from the Board of Trade are not to be believed? To which I gather the answer is "Yes"—three times.

Mr. Wilson: I thought that the question was whether they were to be believed, and the answer to that is certainly "Yes."

Export Target Figures

Mr. Austin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state the revised principal export target figures for the year 1949.

Mr. H. Wilson: The provisional export targets for end 1949 announced on 25th October have been under discussion with the industries concerned, and I expect to make a further announcement at the end of this month or early in February.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

Palestine (Situation)

Mr. Churchill (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement of policy or fact to make upon the recent events in the Middle East concerning Palestine.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): His Majesty's Government fully realise the interest. of the House in the recent events in the Middle East and particularly in Palestine and naturally in view of the attacks made on them they desire to make a full statement to the House and to do so as soon as possible. But at this very moment delicate negotiations are being carried on at Rhodes between Jewish and Egyptian representatives. There are also other discussions going on with other contestants. We have been using all our influence in conjunction with the United States in the hope of arriving at a complete armistice between the Jews and the

Arabs. The reports we are receiving indicate that good progress is being made and we are all particularly eager to contribute to the success of these talks by every possible means.
I am sure the House will agree with me that any discussion of these problems regarding Palestine and the Middle East might have a disturbing effect. The main objective of all concerned must be to secure a peaceful settlement of the whole Palestine question as soon as possible, in the interests both of the contestants and of the stability of the Middle East. We believe that we can best contribute to this at the present stage by postponing discussion of these matters. Fighting has ceased on all fronts and we sincerely trust that this overall truce will be maintained.
In the light of these negotiations there is one matter upon which we desire to make an announcement. It is well known that certain Jewish immigrants of military age were detained in Cyprus. We had been discussing the position of these immigrants with the parties concerned and the more favourable situation that has now arisen has permitted us to send a message to the Acting Mediator announcing that we are prepared to allow these men of military age to leave as soon as the Jews provide transport for them.
As the negotiations to which I have referred make progress, His Majesty's Government will carefully watch them, and we shall take such further steps as may be necessary in the hope of facilitating peace and understanding and I hope to be in a position to make a further and fuller statement next week.

Mr. Churchill: I fear that we shall have to ask for a Debate next week and no doubt it would be very satisfactory if that were prefaced by a further statement by the right hon. Gentleman. I venture to put to you, Sir, that the House must not be prevented from discussing matters of real and burning interest by vague statements of great improvements that are on the way and important delicate discussions which are going on. Nor do I think this last statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman—the announcement which he has just made of the release of large, or considerable numbers, of Jewish immigrants of fighting age from Cyprus in order that they should


join the Jewish Forces in Palestine—fits in very well with the drastic military action which he has taken in other directions. Is he not in fact reinforcing both sides at once?
I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether we can take it for granted that there will be a Debate on this subject offered to the House early next week? Should he see his way to grant such a request, which we are prepared to press, that in no ways stands in the path of any Motion for the Adjournment which may be made on some precise topic such as the actual orders given to the British airplanes which were cast away the other day. I hope he will answer that question with the clear understanding that we should certainly support a Motion for the precise discussion of this particular topic of the orders given to the airplanes and what actually happened, should it be raised from another quarter.

Mr. Bevin: There is another question which I think ought to be answered in the first instance. With regard to the release of the men in Cyprus, I have been endeavouring to deal with this problem for some time. I should like to explain, without going into details, that in nearly all this business I have been handicapped by arrangements with other people. I have no desire to preserve my reputation: I am more interested in doing things to get peace.

Transjordan (British Forces)

Mr. Clement Davies (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons why British Armed Forces have been sent to Transjordan, Egypt and/or Palestine, areas where under the decision of the Security Council of 29th May, 1948, no Armed Forces were to be sent, and whether the prior consent of the Security Council was obtained before such Armed Forces were sent; and further, whether he will give an assurance that British Armed Forces will not be ordered to engage in military operations in this area and that no further Armed Forces will be sent into this area.

Mr. Bevin: Having regard to the statement I have just made, I would deprecate having to go into details regarding the circumstances which led the Government of Transjordan to ask, under the

Anglo-Transjordan Treaty, for the stationing of British Forces at Aqaba. His Majesty's Government took the view that under the Treaty this was a request we could not refuse in the light of all the circumstances and events at that moment.
As these troops were sent to Transjordan territory and no troops have been sent to Palestine, there was no obligation upon us to seek the assent of the Security Council.
As regards the second part of the Question, our future action will be determined by our treaty obligations and United Nations decisions. We have no obligation or intention to engage in any offensive or aggressive action. We hope that the truce which now exists will be maintained and that no further question of military operations will arise.

Mr. Davies: Obviously there will have to be a much fuller statement than that which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to the earlier Question put to him, but this matter is very urgent. It is one which is causing very grave anxiety. Is it not possible, Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid having to take any other action, to have a promise made that this question can be debated tomorrow or Thursday or on both days? There is real, grave anxiety not only throughout the country but throughout the world with regard to the present position. I urge that upon the right hon. Gentleman.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am naturally anxious to meet the wishes and convenience of the House. I thought myself that, if there was a Debate next week, it would be better than having one today, but I am not prejudicing any issue that may be raised with you, Mr. Speaker, although, perhaps, we could get a tidier or more comprehensive Debate if we had it next week. I should be happy to arrange through the usual channels that that should take place. If I may say so, I think it would be too early tomorrow. Things are moving, and let us hope that the situation will be better. I really think that it would be better and more expedient in the public interest for the Debate to take place on a suitable date


next week, as to which we should be happy to enter into conversations through the usual channels.

Mr. Davies: I want to ask two questions arising out of the Foreign Secretary's statement: first, whether the Lord President is aware that there is a Debate in another place tomorrow upon this very matter, and why should that other place have priority over this House? Secondly, even if that be so, will the right hon. Gentleman say, with the responsibility of the Cabinet, that, in the interests of peace, and lest there should be anything said which might in any way jeopardise that peace, it is in the interests of everybody that this Debate should not take place until next week? Will they take that responsibility?

Mr. Morrison: That is a perfectly fair question, and, on behalf of the Government, I do give a statement and an assurance to the House that, in our opinion, from the point of view of peace and a satisfactory settlement, it would be more satisfactory if the Debate took place next week. With regard to the proceedings in another place tomorrow, I am conscious of the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. I think it will be the case, quite probably, that whilst there will be a Debate on Foreign Affairs, I am very doubtful whether it will cover this particular ground, at any rate, to any material extent.

Mr. Churchill: We are content on this side of the House that the Debate should take place next week. May I ask, however, whether we can have an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that, in the interval, having gone to Aqaba, we do not scuttle from it under any threat of mere violence? We would like to have that assurance. May I also ask if the Foreign Secretary will consider whether a British representative to the de facto Government of Israel is not greatly needed to be sent at the present time?

Mr. Bevin: Regarding the second part of the question all these matters are under discussion.

Mr. Churchill: They were a month ago, too.

Mr. Bevin: That may be, but the right hon. Gentleman has been in office as well as I have, and he knows that these

things are not easy. The only thing that I regret in my life is that I have never had the chance—possibly it will be given to me some day—to sit where the right hon. Gentleman is and have a go at him sitting here. I am perfectly sure that I should have his assistance in most ways, but what I am sometimes afraid of is that his indiscretions will sentence me to this side for life. In any case, on this question of recognition, it is not an easy matter, and we cannot take one State in an isolated way. There is another part of the world where the whole question of de facto recognition has created very serious trouble.

Mr. Churchill: Where?

Mr. Bevin: In Indonesia, where very serious troubles and very great difficulties have arisen on questions of sovereignty and so forth. Therefore, it is not an easy matter, and we have been trying to arrive at an arrangement on the basis of the United Nations decisions. We are only trying to get this matter cleared up. With regard to scuttling, I can think the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to realise that I am almost too fat to scuttle anywhere.

Mr. Janner: While appreciating the belated consent to be given to the victims in Cyprus to proceed to Israel, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, pending the Debate, he will see to it that no steps are taken of a unilateral nature which will further complicate the position, and that no troops or forces will be sent to that part of the world in order to encourage, or to appear to encourage, an attitude against Israel which is not the correct one, and will he definitely support the negotiations taking place between the two interested parties?

Mr. Bevin: My policy since I have been in office has always been that this problem will never be settled—I repeat will never be settled—unless by agreement between the two parties. It has been my policy that force on either side will not finally settle it. We shall have trouble for years if we do not recognise that fact. I have been encouraging, helping and trying to get the negotiations going. On the other hand, there will be no need to move any troops at all, and no need to do anything, if both sides now keep the truce, and I shall be against either side that breaks it.

Mr. Churchill: May we be assured that the Foreign Secretary will feel under no restrictions or impediments for taking any necessary measures to procure the safety and effective action of the troops which the Government have sent to Aqaba, and that that does not depend upon any other issue than what is considered necessary by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Bevin: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Churchill: Thank you.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if he can give an assurance that the Commanding Officer in the Canal Zone has been left entirely responsible for looking after the local security of the British troops in the Canal Zone?

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if it is not the case that Transjordan is not in these discussions for an armistice, and would it not strengthen the possibility of an armistice and of lasting peace, particularly with Transjordan, if there were de facto recognition of the Israeli Government?

Mr. Bevin: Transjordan was the first country to make an armistice; they entered into it. They have never invaded—[Interruption.] All the stuff which the hon. Gentleman gets is not correct.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gallacher: You are pals again.

Mr. Bevin: Never mind whether they are pals or enemies; I do not mind.

The fact is that Transjordan troops have never yet entered any territory allocated to the Israelis by the United Nations.

Mr. H. Strauss: May 1 ask the Foreign Secretary one question regarding his statement about Cyprus? Does he say that the release of these men is taking place with Arab consent?

Mr. Bevin: No. They were kept there without Arab consent, and without the Arabs asking for it. They were dealt with under entirely different arrangements.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: While endorsing what my right hon. Friend has said about there never having been an invasion from Transjordan into the area allotted by the United Nations to Israel, is it not equally true that there has never been any incursion from the State of Israel into any part of Transjordan, and in these circumstances was it necessary to send any troops at all?

Mr. Bevin: This is where we get into details. The fact is that there was reconnaissance the other way, and very grave danger was felt. I do not want to say any more, and, unless I am provoked, I will not say any more.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."— [The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes. 292 Noes, 148.

Division No. 39.)
AYES
[3.50 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Benson, G.
Burke, W. A.


Albu, A. H.
Berry, H.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)


Alexander, Rt, Hon. A. V.
Beswick, F.
Byers, Frank


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Callaghan, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bing, G. H. C.
Carmichael, James


Alpass, J. H.
Binns, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Blackburn, A. R.
Chamberlain, R. A.


Attewell, H. C.
Blenkinsop, A.
Champion, A. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon C. R.
Blyton, W. R.
Chater, D.


Austin, H. Lewis
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Bottomley, A. G.
Cluse, W. S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Bacon, Miss. A.
Bowen, R.
Collick, P.


Balfour, A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Collindridge, F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bramall, E. A.
Colman, Miss. G. M.


Barstow, P. G.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Bartlett, V.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cook, T. F.


Barton, C.
Brown, George (Belper)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Battley, J. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Corlett, Dr. J.




Cove, W. G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rees-Williams. D. R.


Crawley, A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras. S. E.)
Reeves, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jenkins, R. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones. Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Rhodes, H.


Daines, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
King, E. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinley, J
Royle. C


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kirby, B. V.
Sargood, R.


Delargy, H. J.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. S.
Scott-Elliott, W.


Dobbie, W.
Lavers, S.
Sharp, Granville


Dodds, N. N.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J J
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shurmer, P.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Miss. J. (Cannock)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Dye, S.
Levy, B. W.
Skeffington-Lodge. T C


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, H N (Nottingham, S)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipson D. L.
Smith, S. H. (Hull. S W)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lipton, Lt Col M
Snow, J W


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Solley, L. J.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Longden, F
Sparks, J A


Ewart, R.
Lyne, A. W.
Stamford, W


Farthing, W. J.
McEntee, V. La. T
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)


Fernyhough, E
McGhee, H G
Strauss, Rt Hon G R (Lambern)


Field, Capt W. J.
McGovern, J
Stross, Dr B


Fletcher, E G M (Islington. E.)
Mack, J. D.
Stubbs, A. E.


Follick, M.
McKinlay, A S
Summerskill, Dr Edot


Foot, M M.
McLeavy, F
Swingler, S


Forman, J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H
Sylvester, G O


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
MacPherson, M (Stirling)
Symonds, A L


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Macpherson, T (Romford)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Gallacher, W
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, R J (Morpeth)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, J P W (Huddersfield)
Taylor, Dr S (Barnet)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mann, Mrs. J
Thomas, D E (Aberdare)


Gibson, C W
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gilzean, A
Manning, Mrs L (Epping)
Thomas, I O (Wrekin)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Marquand, H A
Thomas, John R (Dover)


Gordon-Walker, P. C
Mathers, Rt Hon George
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mayhew, C P
Thurtle, Ernest


Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)
Middleton, Mrs L
Titterington, M F


Grenfell, D. R
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Tolley, L.


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Grierson, E.
Monslow, W.
Turner-Samuels, M


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moody, A S.
Vernon, Maj W F


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E)
Wadsworth, G.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Moyle, A.
Wallace, G D (Chislehurst)


Guy, W. H.
Murray, J D
Wallace, H W (Walthamstow E)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Naylor, T. E.
Warbey, W N


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Watson, W M


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J (Derby)
Weitzman, D


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, P L (Faversham)


Haworth, J.
Orbach, M
West, D. G.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paget, R. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J T (Edinb'gh. E.)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Herbison, Miss. M
Palmer, A M F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Hicks, G.
Parker, J. 
Wigg, George


Holman, P
Parkin, B. T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C A B


Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Willey, F T (Sunderland)


Horabin, T. L.
Paton, J (Norwich)
Willey, O G. (Cleveland)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pearson, A
Williams, R W (Wigan)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Piratin, P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Williams, W R (Heston)


Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.
Willis, E


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J H


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wise, Major F. J


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pritt, D. N.
Woods, G. S


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Proctor, W. T
Yates, V. F


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pryde, D. J.
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Randall, H. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Janner, B.
Ranger, J.



Jay, D P T
Rankin, J
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.







NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Glyn, Sir R.
Nicholson, G.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Gridley, Sir A.
Odey, G. W.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Baxter, A. B.
Haughton, S. G.
Pitman, I. J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Beechman, N. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)


Boothby, R
Hollis, M C
Robinson, Roland


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Lord J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bower, N.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Savory, Prof. D. L


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Scott, Lord W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jennings, R.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Bullock, Capt. M
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W
Smithers, Sir W


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E H.
Snadden, W M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lancaster, Col. C G
Spearman, A C M


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J
Spence, H. R.


Challen, C
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
S'udholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Cap. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Low, A. R. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas, Major Sir J
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n', S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Teeling, William


Davidson, Viscountess
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


De la Bère, R
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Digby, S. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Col. A. V G (Penrith)
McFarlane, C. S.
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G B
Mackeson, Brig. H R
Vane W. M F


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wakefield, Sir W W


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
MacLeod, J.
Ward, Hon G. R


Duthie, W. S.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Eccles, D. M.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Eden, Rt. Hon A
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Marlowe, A. A H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Erroll, F. J.
Marsden, Capt. A
Winterton, Rt Hon Earl


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
York, C.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Young, Sir A S L. (Partick)


Fox, Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J.



Gage, C.
Molson, A H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Major Conant and


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead')
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Colonel Wheatley.


Gates, Maj. E E
Mott-Radclyffe, C E



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

6.44 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I should very much desire to pay tribute to the helpful spirit in which it has been received and discussed on both sides of the House. Like the quota Measure which was introduced about this time a year ago, it has gone through its Second Reading and Committee stages without even a single division; and, although none of the Amendments which were put forward was technically acceptable I sympathise with the object of the Amendments which were moved.
As the House will recall, the Bill's purpose is to provide supplementary transitional finance, on a self-liquidating basis, for an expanding output of British films, both to entertain the film-going public at home, and to reflect abroad as well as at home the British way of life. Quite apart from any question of what entertainment the public prefers—and I do not think our quota in any way exaggerates the proportion of British made entertainment which the public prefers—we are compelled by dire economic necessity, and will be compelled for some considerable time to come, to reduce the costs of our screen entertainment in terms of dollars for films from America. This means that the public demand for ample and varied screen entertainment can only continue to be satisfied if British cinemas can be assured of an adequate output from film studios in this country, and that demand can only be met if the industry receives and deserves the requisite measure of financial support.
It is, of course, as the House has agreed on all sides, a matter for regret that because of the industry's transitional difficulties, a proportion of this financial support has to be provided from Exchequer sources, but, as I have already made clear on a number of occasions, it is intended that that support shall be self-liquidating. The House has generously

recognised that it was the clear duty of the Government to act, and, above all, to act promptly, in this difficult situation which confronts them, and, apart from the point of detail which was raised by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), the principle of which I fully accept—a point of detail which will now have to stand over for consideration perhaps in another place—this Bill can fairly be described as the formal expression of the House's recognition of the need for some action by the Government.
I do not make any claim that the Bill by itself will afford any ready made solution for all the problems of film production. In particular, of itself it will not solve the crucial problem of bringing down costs, but it will take one stage further the process of piecing together a framework within which the two sides of production, the producers on the one hand and employees and technicians on the other, can and must work together to achieve stability in the industry for their own common advantage and for that of the country.
In other words, the Bill paves the way towards a revival of confidence in the industry. It cannot create that confidence, but, given the help which this Bill will provide, the industry has now got the job of pressing on with setting its house in order for itself. I am quite sure, after the response we had in the Second Reading and the Committee stage, that the House will give its support to this Bill. 1 now ask the House to approve the Third Reading of the Bill in the same spirit in which earlier stages were carried through.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: The President of the Board of Trade said that this is largely an agreed Measure, and that is the case. He has been courteous enough to tell me that he will see that in another place an Amendment will be introduced—of course, 1 cannot discuss it in detail—which will go towards meeting the last point which I raised. Clearly, I cannot discuss such an Amendment, of which I only know the general terms, but I take this opportunity of thanking him for doing that. The Government's proposal will be examined very carefully in another place, and I hope the point I have made will be met.
There is only one other point which I wish to raise, and that arises out of some remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made in the Debate on the Committee stage. These are his words:
I can tell the Committee that it is my intention, as soon as the necessary experience has been gained, to allow the Corporation to lend money direct to producers in all classes of case, if I can use that phrase, which are suitably defined and I should regard it as my duty to state the classes of case we were proposing to approve. But I would not like to tie myself down at the moment. …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 425.]
Is the President in a position to say anything more on that subject? If he says he has not had time to gain experience, I must accept that answer, but I know that many hon. Members agree with me in attaching great importance to the advent of the day when loans will be made direct to producers instead of through another organisation. I do not know whether anyone else will speak for the Government tonight, but I ask that this point should be considered.
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right in saying that the provision of this finance in itself makes no contribution to the lowering of costs. I think that is self-evident. Nevertheless, I think it will be of some benefit to the industry, and I hope that the very grave risk which is to be taken with taxpayers' money will he rewarded at least by seeing the future of British films on a sounder basis.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I want merely to say one or two things about what has happened in connection with this Bill since the Committee stage. I felt that the Committee stage was a little confused and, re-reading it, I found it even more confused than I thought at the time. It is confused because this is a most confusing industry. Things which make sense in other industries make nonsense in this industry, and it is extremely difficult for many people to grasp the situation.
I am disturbed by the thought that this Measure may well be a dead letter, for it is very disturbing to find that distributors are not being attracted by the proposition. They feel that if they have to pledge their assets in order to get assistance from this Corporation the question arises what use is it to them anyhow? They prefer to keep away from it

altogether. Secondly, we have distributors who are relatively small in the industry, or who have recently come into it and who intend to utilise the facilities granted by the Corporation to become more or less little empires of their own, presumably on the strength of Government assistance. That is not the intention of this Bill. I believe there is a danger that the Bill will not really come to fruition at all.
I am also very much concerned by the fact that independent producers do not want to take advantage of this Measure. Independent producers have definitely stated that they do not intend to come forward and ask for assistance under this Bill. They do not intend to do so for the very simple reason that in the present economic circumstances of the industry it is quite impossible to make a picture which pays. Rather than take Government money, or anybody else's money for that matter, they say they prefer to stay out of the business. We have the freelance people at present virtually doing nothing and having no intention at the present time of taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill. I am afraid, therefore, that it is very likely that so far as its effect on the man we want to help—the independent or freelance producer—is concerned, this Bill may well be a dead letter.
I want to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the danger of the producer getting into the hands of distributors who appear to have no moral sense whatever. I saw a letter the other day from a firm of distributors to a producer about a certain production. This distributor, who has applied for aid under the Government scheme, said he would guarantee 60 per cent.—guarantee, not advance—of the cost of the Bill. For that he said he would require his usual distribution cost of 25 per cent. and on top of that would want 75 per cent. of the profits. That places the producer in an intolerable position. He gets 60 per cent. guaranteed. He has to find the whole of the money elsewhere, and has to go to somebody and say, "I have 25 per cent. of the profits; I will take 10 per cent. myself, and I will give you 15 per cent." I hope the President of the Board of Trade will realise that this Bill will be no use at all unless there are other reforms in the industry. It is no good dealing with this financial aspect


in isolation. We have to deal with the hold which the distributor has on the business, the all-too-large slice which he takes out of it.
I want an answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) about the precise relationship between the Corporation and the distributor. At the time the point was raised the President could not say very much at all. What is to be the relationship between the distributor and the Corporation? Will the Corporation determine the programme or select suitability, or are we to depend purely on the financial standing of the distributor?
I welcome this Bill, as do most people, but having seen the results in the last month or so I fear it will not fulfil the high expectations raised when it was introduced. I am afraid there is a grave possibility that it will go the way of the Cotton Spinning Act introduced into this House and passed some time ago; I fear it will not work. If the President wants to see it work he must take very active steps to deal with the things which are basically wrong with the industry—the abnormally high costs, the too-large share which the distributor takes. He must see that those things are put right, for in isolation this Bill can do nothing to save the British film industry from disaster.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to say a word or two about this Bill before it passes from this House. I agree that much must be done to cut down the cost of production. Like other hon. Members, as I go around the country I hear the many stories which are being told about high costs, empty studios and so on, but I also meet exhibitors and I know that some of the best films which have been produced here are not being shown in hundreds of cinemas in the country. This Bill refers to those who have a reasonable expectation of being able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films. I want to know what is implied by the phrase "distribution of cinematograph films"? Does it mean that there is the possibility of distributing films around the big circuits or does it mean distributing films among cinemas from one end of the country to the other?
The President of the Board of Trade knows, as every hon. Member should know, that one of the big problems is the fact that neither the producer nor the distributor can give any possible guarantee of getting a film into the cinemas of this country except in the case of the big circuits. If the Minister is to take seriously the question of the distribution of cinematograph films he must do something more to ensure that the hundreds of cinemas which are scattered throughout the country, and where it is essential that the best films produced in this country should be shown, are able to show these films. Every hon. Member knows that is the case. In how many cinemas outside the big circuits, for instance, will "Hamlet" be shown? There are hundreds of cinemas in the country where. from a cultural and educational point of view, such a film ought to be shown. The same question applies to many of the films that are produced by independent producers.
What guarantee will the Minister demand that the people who are in most need of the distribution of these films will have the films distributed to them? I would suggest that he has a talk with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see. in connection with the special films under the Bill, not only that the assistance promised in the Bill is given, but whether it can be arranged in some way that the smaller cinemas will have them without the payment of Entertainment Duty—or something to that effect. At any rate, I want to insist that something must be done to make this part of the Bill a reality. The distribution of films must not simply mean that the distributor is satisfied with the possibility or opportunity of distributing films through the big circuits. It ought to mean that the distributor is in a position to guarantee that he can get the films into the cinemas as a whole. I would impress on him the great importance of getting the best of the films to the poorer districts of the industrial areas and to the country areas, where it is very seldom that they have any possibility of seeing any of the good, highly desirable cultural films that have been produced in this country.

Mr. Benn Levy: Has the hon. Member any device to propose whereby cinemas outside the main


circuits could be compelled to take films such as "Hamlet" if they do not want them?

Mr. Gallacher: They cannot be compelled because they are not in a position to pay for the films; so I would suggest that measures be taken along with this Bill to ensure that the films will be distributed. One of the ways to ensure that, in the case of a film produced under this Bill, would be to relieve the smaller cinemas from Entertainment Duty when showing such films. At any rate, the President of the Board of Trade should be prepared to think out ways and means to ensure that these films will be shown where they are most needed—not only in the cinemas of the big circuits, but in the other cinemas in the poorer, working-class districts, and especially in the rural districts. There are some places where people scarcely ever see films of real educational or cultural value, but only the poorest and cheapest films. That is a bad situation. It means that we do not obtain the best results for the people from the films produced.
I know that hon. Members on the other side of the House are not interested in people who cannot afford big prices. They can go to the West End. What is 7s. 6d. or 10s. 6d. or a couple of guineas for a seat to hon. Members on the other side? Nothing at all. However, many people in this country, working men and women in the industrial and rural areas, never have an opportunity of seeing the best of these films, and I want to impress on the Minister, and upon hon. Members on the other side of the House, that the distribution of films should include the possibility of their distribution, not only in the cinemas of the big circuits, but in cinemas throughout the land. If the Minister takes that matter up he will be doing a valuable job, not only for the industry but for the development of culture amongst the people of the country.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. H. Wilson: If I may have leave to speak again I should like to deal with the questions put to me. In reply to the

right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttleton), I am sorry that I cannot now indicate the class of case in which direct assistance will be available. We are working hard on the question, and intend to make it a real thing. I am sure the House would wish us to go into the matter very carefully for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman and I and others expressed at earlier stages of the Bill. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) asked a number of questions' about distribution. All I can say is that they do not really fall within the Bill. The Committee on distribution is working hard on all these questions at the present time, and I hope that many if not all of the questions asked by the hon. Member will be covered by that inquiry.
The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) said that he thought that the Bill was already showing signs of becoming a dead letter. The Bill is not yet through the House, and the Corporation is not set up. As I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman, we have not been able to set in motion 'that side of the Corporation's activities which deals with direct finance to production companies. That is where he and I and, I am sure, all of us are looking to see, perhaps, the biggest gain in the future from the provisions of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (ABOLITION) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish the Railway and Canal Commission and make provision for the future exercise and performance of their functions; to amend and repeal certain enactments relating to their functions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of pensions to or in respect of persons who suffer loss of employment in consequence of the abolition of the said Commission.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (ABOLITION) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Pensions for persons suffering loss of employment.)

The Lord Chancellor may pay, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to or in respect of any person who suffers loss of employment in consequence of the abolition of the Commission and as to whom the Lord Chancellor, with the approval of the Treasury, determines that such provision should be made, such pension as he may so determine.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.]

7.9 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill I undertook to put down, in Committee, a new Clause providing for the payment of a pension to the last surviving member of the Court which this Bill will abolish. The Committee will remember that that gentleman is Lord Maenan, to whom I venture respectfully to refer as having a remarkably long record of public service in the courts of this country and in other fields. I am quite certain that the Committee would desire that on his relinquishing his present position—one of a number of judicial and other positions that he has held—he should receive an appropriate pension. The charge upon the State is not likely to be a very heavy one because of circumstances which will be apparent to the Committee, but I am quite certain that it would be the desire of the Committee to make sure that provision was made, and that that provision should not be ungenerous.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I rise to welcome this new Clause. On the Second Reading, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) also paid tribute to the work of this last surviving member of the Railway and Canal Commission. We welcome the Clause as a valuable addition to the Bill, and we hope that Lord

Maenan will be able to take full advantage of it.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: As an old member of the northern circuit, I feel that I must say how glad I am that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved this new Clause. Anyone who has practised on that circuit knows the immense services rendered in a judicial capacity by Lord Maenan, and must feel glad that those services are being recognised in this House.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended considered; read the Third time, and passed with an Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SAVINGS BANKS BILL

As amended in the Standing Committee considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Orders under Savings Banks Act, 1920, Section 2 to be subject to annulment).

Any order made under section two of the Savings Banks Act, 1920 (which section confers on the Treasury power to regulate within certain limits the rate of interest paid to trustee savings banks on their deposits), shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.12 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
Section 2 of the Savings Banks Act, 1920, empowers the Treasury, by order and within limits, to vary the interest rate on the deposits made by trustee savings banks with the National Debt Commissioners, but the 1920 Act did not make provision for these particular orders to come before this House and to be annulled if the House so decided. When we discussed this matter in Committee upstairs, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) raised the point. I then agreed that I would bring in a new Clause in proper form on Report. This is the Clause. It is technical in form. In 1946, we passed the Statutory


Instruments Act and Section 5 (1) of that Act comes into play wherever the words which we use in this new Clause are inserted in a Bill passed after the date of that Act. The effect is that the words in the Clause will make it possible for any order made in future to be brought before this House and to be annulled by negative Resolution.

Mr. Erroll: We are indeed grateful to the Financial Secretary for meeting us in this way. The new Clause will enable matters affecting the trustee savings banks and their interest rate to be discussed at any time when the interest rate is changed. That may be a small matter, but, after all, the trustee savings banks are very rarely discussed in this House, and it is obviously desirable that it should be possible to discuss their finances as they will be affected by any change in interest rate when the Treasury are proposing to change that rate. We are most grateful to the Financial Secretary for making this possible to the House.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Grants by trustee savings banks for the benefit of other trustee savings banks.)

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the first "Commissioners," to insert "and the Association."
I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. The Bill, as a whole, is a generally agreed Measure, and Clause 1 creates the new procedure for dealing with mutual arrangements between the various trustee savings banks. It is clear that any such mutual arrangements must be subject to the approval of the Commissioners of the National Debt. It is equally clear, and desirable, that they should be subject to the approval of the Association which represents all the individual savings banks. It is, I understand, the practice, and has been so for some years past, that discussions and consultations take place with the Association before the Commissioners give any approval to any arrangements of this sort. The purpose of the Amendment is to make the present practice, which is

agreed to by all parties as being desirable, statutory.
May I add a few words as to the reasons why I hope the Government will see fit to accept this Amendment? I would refer to the discussion which took place upstairs in Committee when I raised this point, although I did not put down a formal Amendment. During that discussion I pointed out, as I have already said, that this was an existing and accepted practice which everyone agreed was a right and proper one and, therefore, it seemed right and proper that it should form part of the legislation covering the transactions of these banks. The Financial Secretary, replying, said:
The Association had been in existence for a good many years now. From what I hear, and from what I have seen of its work, I consider that it takes its job very seriously, and that it does everything it can to help the weaker banks who may want these advances. I believe that the future of the Savings Bank movement is well secured under the guidance of the Association. It is absolutely essential that the National Debt Commissioners come into the picture.
He then added:
I agree that the Association should also. I like to feel that the two work together in great amity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 30th November, 1948; c. 21–22.]
I am sure that they do work together in great amity and in view of the fact that the Financial Secretary has already stated that he thinks that the Association should come into this picture, I can see no reason why he should not—and I hope that he will—accept the Amendment.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is obvious that according to past practice that the Commissioners would not of course act independently of the Association. On the other hand, it is desirable to safeguard the future. We have the position in the Clause as it stands at present whereby the trustee savings banks can, on their own, approach the Commissioners direct without referring to the Association.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: indicated dissent.

Mr. Erroll: The Financial Secretary shakes his head, and I am prepared to be corrected. As I read the Subsection, it appears that the trustees savings banks can make a direct approach to the Commissioners, and while this is unlikely, we


think it is undesirable to leave so obvious a loophole, particularly as the Association referred to in latter parts of the Bill is an integral part of the working machinery envisaged by the Bill. We feel it advisable that it should be written into the Subsection that trustee savings banks must get the approval of the Commissioners and the Association before a grant can be made.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The object of Clause 1, which is the essential Clause of the Bill, is to permit assistance by way of grant to be made by one trustee savings bank to another. As the Clause stands, the approval of the National Debt Commissioners alone is necessary. However, the hon. Member for the St. George's Division of Westminster (Mr. Howard) wishes to insert words which will make it essential for the approval of the Association, in addition to that of the National Debt Commissioners, to be sought and obtained before these grants are made. This Measure is not a party Measure in any sense or form. We have throughout dealt with it in a most amicable way, and I for one do not approach the suggestion made by the two hon. Members opposite in any party spirit. When I considered this Amendment, I asked myself two questions: first, is it necessary that these words should go in? If so, no further query arises. Second, if it is not necessary, is it desirable and expedient; that is to say, would it help to increase the prestige of the Association, or help the trustee savings banks? For reasons which I will now give, I came to the conclusion that the words were not necessary and that it would be wrong for the House to insert them.
I agree straight away—and I think it was said by more than one speaker in Committee—that the Association is doing a very great work. We should not only recognise that, but we should pay tribute to the public spirit of those who assist this organisation; indeed we should encourage them as much as we can. But we must remember that the Association is a voluntary body. Most of the banks belong to it, but they need not do so if they do not wish. Although the members of the Association are nominated by the banks, they are not the banks themselves but only individuals. In addition under

its constitution the executive of the Association has the power to add honorary members who may or may not have anything to do with the trustee savings banks movement. The constitution of this Association is, therefore, somewhat loose; indeed apart from the right to collect subscriptions, it has no power whatever to bind the banks. We must remember that when we consider whether references of this kind should be made in a Bill of this sort.
When we come to consider whether the proposed words are necessary, we have to remember the wording of the Clause. Under Subsection (3) the Commissioners can
upon the application of the Association … if they think fit, debit the Mutual Assistance Account with
a grant, which is passed on to a specified savings bank. Now this is an agreed Measure with the Association and the plain implication and intention of those words is that the Association itself should take the initiative when these grants are being made. If that is so, and if the Association itself is in a sense making and fathering the application, it seems rather curious that we should specially insert such words to make their approval of the grant an essential ingredient when the grant comes to be made.
The Association and the whole field of its activities aim at helping the savings banks, and it is hardly likely that it would veto an application for a grant that was asked for and was being made. Therefore, in our view, it is unnecessary to insert these words, because it would mean that the people who ask for the grant will, after they have asked for it, be asked whether they approve of it. We think that it is a redundancy which we ought not to countenance.

Mr. Howard: Is the Financial Secretary telling the House that under Subsection (3) the words
The Commissioners … may, if they think fit, debit
means they cannot do it except upon the application?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: A scheme to that end is now being worked out by those concerned, but the wording as set forth in Subsection (3) is that all these applications must come through the Association. That being so, it is quite obvious that


they must agree to them and that there is no need to insert further words to say that no grant can be made until they do so. It is, however, necessary that the National Debt Commissioners themselves should have the right to withhold their approval, because it is one of their functions to act for the public and to see that the provisions laid down in statutes are complied with. But the Association has no such obligation; it has no obligations to the public as such, though it certainly has obligations to the banks themselves because it is the body which watches their interests. For those reasons, which I do not wish to elaborate further, I ask the House to resist this Amendment.
The hon. Member for St. George's Division of Westminster (Mr. Howard) was quite right when he said that the Association is now consulted to a very large extent. In fact, the Association is consulted by those concerned well beyond the provisions of the 1929 Act. Therefore, if the fear of the two hon. Members opposite is that the Association will is some way be cold-shouldered in the future, I can assure them that that is far from being the intention. It is the desire of the National Debt Commissioners and the Treasury that in the future, as in the past, the Association shall be consulted in every possible direction, consonant with the powers vested in the various authorities concerned. We want the savings banks to get the full benefit of the Association's activities and of the provisions of this and other Acts of Parliament.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very persuasive speech, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not think it necessary to press this matter, because I think the Financial Secretary has made it quite clear that this collaboration and prior consultation are intended to take place, and do take place. The only thing I have in mind is this. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to Subsection (3) he implied—indeed, I think he said—that the Commissioners would not make these grants except upon the application of the Association, and that it was not necessary to bring them in at this further stage because they had been brought in earlier. If that is what is meant to be

the interpretation of Subsection (3) perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at it again in the subsequent stages, because on the face of it, it is not obvious that it is only upon the application of the Association that the matter arises.
The Commissioners, upon the application of the Association, may
do so and so does not seem to me necessarily to mean that unless they apply they cannot do it. If that is really the intention perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see whether it is necessary to make it abundantly clear in the words of the statute.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Mr. Glenvil Hall indicated assent.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his observations, which, I hope, will be noted. In view of what the Financial Secretary has said, and if he will look into this point, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: indicated assent.

Mr. Howard: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, after "books," to insert "of the Commissioners."
This is a drafting Amendment. When we dealt with this matter upstairs, we transposed certain Subsections, altering their order, although not their wording. The words in this Amendment were unfortunately missed out. I apologise to the House for that, and we now desire to reinsert them.

Captain Crookshank: I am sure we accept the most handsome apology the right hon. Gentleman has tendered to us, but I hope he will see whether this phrase could not be written a little better. When I first saw the Amendment I wondered if it was right, with so many "ofs."
… in the books of the Commissioners of any trustee savings bank so specified.
It is a very awkward piece of English and perhaps once more it could be turned round and made right.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after "Commissioners," to insert "and the Association."
The point of principle here is the same as in the previous case, that the approval of the Association should be active and real just as the approval of the Commissioners is necessary, but it is a little bit different in regard to the safeguard to which the Financial Secretary called the attention of the House. There are two ways in which this mutual assistance can be met. The first is by a payment into a mutual assistance account and then the payment out of that account to the receiving bank. With that point we have already dealt, for it is the one, as the Financial Secretary has told us, which is safeguarded.
The second one dealt with in this subsection is where a grant is made direct from one bank to another, not through the mutual assistance account. In this case the approval and consultation with the Association is not in any way safeguarded by other subsections. I will not argue the point of principle, because that is clear, but I want to ask the Financial Secretary to accept this Amendment, which, clearly, is in line with the principle with which we are all agreed, but which is not safeguarded as was the previous Amendment.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I quite agree that there is more reason, if we are to insert these words at all, to insert them in Subsection (4); but, as those who remember our discussions upstairs will recollect, we transposed these subsections to make it clear that the principle method by which these grants would be made would be by payment through the mutual assistance account. Actually, the method here mentioned will rarely, if ever, be used. In fact, it is not proposed to use this method at all in normal cases; but it was felt, when this matter was under discussion, that there should be some sort of elasticity in order to provide for cases of emergency, which I, for one, can hardly visualise.
A scheme is being worked out between the Association and those concerned, and the method adopted will in all cases be the method laid down under Subsection (3). The Association can then take the initiative and, when the Commissioners receive the application, they can approve or not, as the case may

be. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) no doubt had Subsection (4) in his mind when he said what he did in his first speech. But the savings banks do not intend to use it except under special circumstances.
The association is mentioned in the Act of 1929, but it is not a statutory body in any sense or form, and, though it has been and is being consulted on every occasion, it would not perhaps be fair to put the words suggested into a Bill of this kind. They would appear to give it a power and an influence which is out of all proportion. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. George's division of Westminster (Mr. Howard) will not press this Amendment because, if he does, I shall have to resist it.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has referred on two or three occasions to the fact that a scheme is being drafted between the Association and the banks. This Bill does not make it necessary to bring it before the House, but could we have an assurance that some means will be found of giving publicity to the scheme, either by placing it in the Library when it is arranged, or in some other place so that Members interested can see the end of the story?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Most certainly. I assume the savings banks themselves will desire that their members should know what is being done. Apart from that, I will consult my advisers on this, and I will see if a copy of the scheme, when prepared, can be placed in the Library for the use of hon. Members.

Captain Crookshank: Thank you.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I should preface my remarks on the Third Reading of this Bill, by making it quite clear that I fully appreciate that the Bill is an agreed Measure between the Treasury and the trustee savings banks concerned. Therefore, to introduce any note other than that of agreement might seem to verge on carping criticism. On the other hand, I feel it necessary to


point out one or two facts about this Bill. The Bill covers a number of technical matters, with which on Third Reading we are not concerned. On the other hand, the Bill has come into being because of the Treasury's intention to reduce interest rates paid to the banks, and this interest rate was agreed to as a result of discussions, on the understanding that the richer banks or the banks with larger accumulated funds might be allowed to transmit them to the smaller, newer or poorer banks anxious to use such funds for development purposes.
Under normal conditions no objection could be made to such a process of bargaining, because both sides would gain equally, but it is certainly unnecessarily harsh for the Treasury to insist on a reduction of interest rates at the present time when the banks in the next year or two will be incurring a number of increased expenses, the full magnitude of which cannot be properly assessed at the present time. It is indeed a striking commentary on the efficiency of the trustee savings banks that at a time when all forms of Government expenditure are increasing, the Treasury is managing to secure that the trustee savings banks shall, in fact, receive less money for performing increased services to the community.
It is striking, too, that the trustee savings banks are able to accept this demand from the Treasury and apparently still remain solvent. I would urge the Financial Secretary to bear in mind the possible need of reverting once more to higher interest rates in the near future, on account of the many increased costs which the trustee savings banks will be called upon to bear. First of all there are salaries. Salaries are everywhere increasing. In 1948 there were more wage increases than in 1947. It is, therefore, unlikely that salaries will fail to show something of an upward trend during 1949 and 1950. Holidays with pay, larger insurance contributions and many other fixed overheads are now bigger than they were one or two years ago. At the same time office costs are
tremendously inflated. Stationery is

more expensive and so is office furniture and equipment, not only because of their true cost but because the Treasury levy Purchase Tax upon them.
It therefore has become much more expensive to enlarge office premises and to take on additional work. I suggest that it may well be necessary to revert to the present interest rate in the near future, because of the increased working expenses of trustee savings banks. I know that the better-established banks have accumulated large surpluses in the past. The Treasury, in its frugal way, has now deemed those surpluses to be too large for present needs, but those surpluses only show what valuable work these trustee savings banks have done. It is unfortunate that they should be compelled to part with their surpluses to other banks at a time when they may require to use them themselves. It is important to remember the valuable part which trustee savings banks have played in the savings movement of this country.
Nowhere, where a trustee savings bank has been set up, has the volume of savings through the Post Office Savings Bank been diminished. The trustee savings banks therefore attract a volume of new savings which has not been attracted hitherto by any other form of Government appeal either through Savings Bonds or the Post Office Savings Bank. Trustee savings banks offer, too, a service which inevitably is not available from over the ordinary post office counter. They are managed by men with banking knowledge and knowledge of human affairs. They are thus enabled to render advice and service which is much appreciated by customers who patronise those banks. I hope the fact will be fully appreciated that trustee savings banks occupy a very special place in the savings economy of this country. It would be false economy to impoverish them in any way and so to reduce the service which they have been rendering to the community in the past and which, given a proper measure of financial assistance from the Treasury, they will be able to render in the future.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend State management to new towns and adjoining areas and to make further provision as respects State management districts, to provide for the payment of allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland, and to make provision for other matters, it is expedient to0 authorise—

(a) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under the said Act in the State management of the liquor trade in the existing State management districts, in new towns and in adjoining areas, and the payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of the Secretary of State arising therefrom;
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the payment of allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland."

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID AND ADVICE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make legal aid and advice in England and Wales, and in the case of members of the forces legal advice elsewhere, more readily available for persons of small or moderate means, to enable the cost of legal aid or advice for such persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the net sums required to meet payments out of any fund set up under the Act in connection with the provision of legal aid and legal advice if (subject to any discretion of the Lord Chancellor to modify the Act by regulations thereunder to meet special cases)—

(a) legal aid under the Act—

(i) is not made available for persons whose disposable income as determined under the Act exceeds four hundred and twenty pounds a year; and
(ii) may be refused to a person if he has a disposable capital as so determined of more than five hundred pounds and it appears he can afford to proceed without legal aid; and

(b) a person given legal aid under the Act may be required to contribute to the fund up to a maximum equal to one-half the amount by which his disposable income as so determined exceeds one hundred and fifty-six pounds a year together with the full amount by which his disposable capital as so determined exceeds seventy-five pounds

(subject, however, to repayment of any excess of the contribution over the net liability of the fund on his account);

B. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses of the National Assistance Board attributable to any provision of the Act relating to the determination of a person's disposable income or capital or to a person's contribution to any such fund as aforesaid;
C. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of travelling and other allowances to members of any advisory committee set up by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of the Act;
D. The repayment to local funds out of moneys provided by Parliament of any costs paid out of those funds by virtue—

(a) of any grant of free legal aid under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1930, or the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act, 1933, as amended, extended or applied by any other Act (including the said Act of the present Session): or
(b) of a person's defence before a court of assize or quarter sessions being conducted by counsel at the request of the judge or chairman of the court."

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make legal aid and advice in Scotland more readily available for persons of small or moderate means, and to enable the cost of legal aid or advice for such persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament; to establish a Law Society of Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the net sums required to meet payments out of any fund set up under the Act in connection with the provision of legal aid and legal advice if (subject to any discretion of the Secretary of State to modify the Act by regulations thereunder to meet special cases)—

(a) legal aid under the Act—

(i) is not made available (except in the preliminary stages in criminal proceedings) for persons whose disposable income as determined under the Act exceeds four hundred and twenty pounds a year; and
(ii) may be refused (except as aforesaid) to a person if he has a disposable capital as so determined of more than five hundred pounds and it appears he can afford to proceed without legal aid: and

(b) a person given legal aid under the Act may be required to contribute to the fund up to a maximum equal to one-half the amount by which his disposable income as so determined exceeds one hundred and fifty-six pounds a year together with the full amount by which his disposable capital as so determined exceeds seventy-five


pounds (subject, however, to repayment of any excess of the contribution over the net liability of the fund on his account);

B. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses of the National Assistance Board attributable to any provision of the Act relating to the determination of a person's disposable income or capital or to a person's contribution to any such fund as aforesaid."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Orders of the Day — ROYTON COTTAGE HOSPITAL (TRANSFER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I want to raise a subject which is causing much concern, the taking over by the State, under the National Health Service Act, of hospitals which have been privately endowed by the generosity of an individual person. A man after a life of hard work has left his savings to found and to endow a hospital for the lasting benefit of the people of his home town. It would be difficult to imagine a better way to benefit the community than that which I have mentioned. Such a man was Dr. Kershaw of Royton. He died in 1909, and after leaving certain personal bequests in his will, he left the residue of his estate to his trustees to be applied to the founding, establishment, maintenance of a General Hospital or Infirmary in the township of Royton, on land owned by him. Such a hospital was to be free and open to all applicants.
The war of 1914–18 intervened, and the difficult years which followed it prevented the building of that hospital until towards the end of the 1920's. It was however built and ready for opening by 1930. Approval was given by the Charity Commissioners to the scheme, according to the terms of Dr. Kershaw's will. It cost £20,000 to build. After that sum had been spent, there was still an endowment fund of not less than £67,000, which now has reached £71,000 because of interest on investments and one or two other legacies which have come in. I want to emphasise that not a penny has been given otherwise by the people of the town or has been collected through the rates or in any other way. There has never been a flag day. The endowment fund was sufficient to last for

all time and to fulfil all the purposes of this hospital. The hospital is a self-contained unit of 19 beds, where patients can receive the best treatment under the best circumstances, at as low a cost as 5s. a week in some cases. A weekly payment of 10s. has been quite usual. Many people have come from surrounding districts as well as from Royton, and the proportion of these had been in the region of four to two.
The control and management of the hospital was vested by the Charity Commissioners in a committee of nine, five of whom were to be members of the Urban District Council. The remaining four, two of whom were to be women, were people interested in hospitals generally. It was a thoroughly representative committee. The Charity Commissioners were careful to add that a minister of religion or a person professing Socialist opinions was not eligible to be a member of the committee. That provision was in strict compliance with the terms of Dr. Kershaw's will, in which he laid down that no Socialist or person known to hold or profess Socialist opinions should be at any time a trustee, director or manager of the said hospital. That was in 1909. He was a man wise in his generation, indeed a man who was wise ahead of his generation. Even at that time he could foresee the dangers inherent in a system of Socialism, and great credit is due to him for his foresight. I must add that he also pressed the view that clergymen and ministers of religion should not be trustees of or in other ways connected with the hospital.
The committee fully thought that the hospital would be disclaimed under Clause 6 (3) of the National Health Service Act. Not for one moment did they think it would be otherwise. They were therefore surprised to receive a letter dated 24th September, 1947, from the Minister in which it was stated that the Minister was of opinion that the hospital was transferable to him, and if the committee knew of any circumstances why it should not be, they should take an early opportunity of putting forward their reasons. They therefore applied to be disclaimed under the Clause by letter dated 7th November, 1947. Four months passed without an answer. The Committee naturally wondered what the position was, but they heard nothing until


11th March, 1948, when there came a letter stating that the Minister had decided not to disclaim the hospital. Meanwhile, on 3rd March a notice had appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" giving a long list entitled:
Hospitals Under Health Service. Groupings in the Manchester Region.
The name of the hospital did not appear in that list, only eight days before the Minister's letter, and I should like to know why it was not included in that list which had obviously been inserted by the Minister of Health. Was it due to the fact that the whole question was still under consideration and that there was some doubt about it? Combined with the fact that there was such a long delay in replying, it suggests some difference of opinion. Perhaps also the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us why the hospital was not disclaimed. I understand that 16 in the Manchester area alone were disclaimed and that a considerable number were throughout the country. I should have thought that this hospital would have been the one to be disclaimed if ever there was one.
It has always been the aim of the courts and of Parliament to respect the wishes of a testator. The courts indeed have gone to considerable lengths to construe the wishes of a testator in the way which they thought would be his desire. We have always been proud of our care to honour a last will and testament in this way. There is no precedent in history for the Government's treatment of charitable trusts which is shown in this Act. All this was forcibly brought out during the Committee stage of the Bill on 23rd May, 1946, and other days by my hon. Friends. We shall live to regret this direct contravention of the wishes of so many men who have endowed hospitals in this way.
Clause 6 (4) states that all property should vest in the Minister free of any existing trust. However, the paragraph goes on:
The Minister may use any such property for the purpose of any of his functions under this Act, but shall so far as practicable secure that the objects for which any such property was used immediately before the appointed day are not prejudiced by the provisions of this section.
The words "so far as practicable" leave a loophole which enables the Minister if he wishes to ignore altogether the objects

for which the endowments were made. Considerable effort was made in the Standing Committee to bind the Minister as regards trusts taken over and to insert something much more definite than the words "so far as practicable," but all was unavailing. The Minister of Health refused to take the slightest notice of our appeals and by so doing he has undermined all charitable bequests because he is able to wriggle out of everything as a result of the words "so far as practicable. "How different is the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): The hon. Member is going into a field of argument to which I cannot possibly reply because it would mean that I should have to discuss amendment of the law.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) was saying that the Minister had a power to disclaim which he had not exercised.

Mr. Edwards: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I gathered that he was saying that another Act was so drafted as to give the kind of thing he wanted, whereas the National Health Service Act was not so drafted. I fail to see the point of the argument unless it was that the Act should be drafted differently.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the hon. Member was still complaining of the non-exercise by the Minister of his power to disclaim. He has not yet got to his argument on the National Health Service Act.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I was about to say that the Education Act, which refers to another Department and is no concern of the Minister who is present, lays down a different proposition altogether, because by that Act the Minister has power by Order in Council to take over the endowments of any educational or semi-educational property which has been vested in the charity commissioners, but in every case their assent is needed when the endowment has been in existence less than 50 years. I was merely saying how much better it would have been if that provision could have been inserted in the National Health Service Act.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, and through him, the Minister, to reconsider the position of these hospitals. The Act is already on the Statute Book and presumably the only way in which it can be


altered is by way of regulation. Appeals were made to the Minister during the Committee stage to do this, and he still has an opportunity if only he will do it. I make that appeal to him now.
Finally, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the future of this little hospital, which is so fully equipped to deal with every kind of case. It has a fine operating theatre which is still ready for full use. I am told that now only half a dozen patients are in it, whereas, previous to this Act coming into force, the beds were nearly always full and there was often a waiting list. I am told that people needing operations are being sent elsewhere because no longer are they using the operating theatre at that hospital. There is, indeed, a suspicion that it will become merely a home for infirm or elderly people. I sincerely hope that will not be the case.
I hope that a similar fate does not await this hospital which befell the Yorkshire Home for Incurables at Harrogate where they had 70 beds and an endowment fund of £100,000 raised by public subscriptions, donations and legacies. Strong protests were made by the committee of that hospital, but they were finally cajoled into giving consent to come in under the scheme by the threat that they would find it difficult to get nurses if they remained outside. Well, they went into the scheme, but instead of that hospital being continued as a hospital, it is used now as the finance department of the local hospital board, and instead of people being admitted from the long waiting list, there is a host of clerks there and the whole building has become offices. I think that must be one of the greatest hoaxes which have been perpetrated upon the committee of any hospital, and I hope that such a fate does not await the hospital to which I am drawing attention tonight.
It is action of this kind which makes people apprehensive of the future. Already, by taking over its endowments without any consultation with the committee or anyone in the town, the local character of this hospital has been to some extent destroyed. Feeling has been running high, I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary, ever since it was known that it was to be taken over, because this town is proud of the work which the hospital has done for its people and for those in the neighbourhood. Unless the hospital is allowed to play its full part,

it is no exaggeration to say that it will be a scandalous betrayal of the wishes of the testator. Indeed, it will be detrimental both to the town itself and to the surrounding neighbourhood. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give an assurance on this point or, at any rate, if he cannot go any further, say that the hospital will continue to be used to its full capacity as a hospital for the purpose for which it was endowed.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I have listened with great interest to the plea for Dr. Kershaw's Cottage Hospital at Royton which has been so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe). He can speak with first-hand knowledge of the conditions of the hospital and for the people of Royton in a way which I could never hope to do. However, I should like to put the matter to the Parliamentary Secretary from the point of view of the family of the late Dr. Kershaw.
There is one son surviving, Mr. Raymond Kershaw, who is a constituent of mine, a man whom I have known personally for a good many years, and he is, I believe, a man of integrity whose views should be respected. After the decision of the Minister was announced, he came to me and brought to me a copy of his father's will, which he asked me to read carefully. Of course, I did so, and then he told me something of the surroundings when the will was made. He pointed out at the time that he and the rest of the family were grown up, they were standing on their own feet, and when their father said that he wished to leave the money to endow this cottage hospital, they said that they were all in perfect agreement that they should give up their inheritance in order that Royton might have this cottage hospital.
With that in mind, it is no small wonder that the surviving members of the family still take a keen interest in the hospital. He told me that they were all, and still are, in agreement with the views of their father when he laid down that no person known to hold or express Socialist opinions should at any time be a trustee, director or manager of the hospital. The matter was discussed with them by their father before he died, and they believed that he was right, and I and many of us on this side of the House


will think that he was wise well before his time in foreseeing that that would give bad administration, and therefore trying to do all he could to avoid it. Indeed, the behaviour of the Ministry of Health on this matter seems to reinforce what has happened, and the very fact that the first time the hospital desires to take up so important a matter with the Ministry, it takes them four months to reply to a letter, seems to me to be strong evidence of bad administration of the type that Dr. Kershaw wished to avoid.
Be that as it may, he left the money, and the family gave up what they believed was to have been their inheritance, for the public good upon certain conditions. Above all, the father and the family wanted to see his hospital with good administration and run on grounds so that there should be no racial, religious or political discrimination, and they felt in their hearts that by not having Socialist administration they could get what they wanted. So far as I know there have been no complaints about the running of the Royton Cottage Hospital. The people connected with it in the past have done their job well. The people of Royton who have passed through the Hospital are well satisfied with it, and the members of the family have been proud of its administration over the past years. Therefore they were very distressed when it was to be taken over under the new scheme, and Mr. Raymond Kershaw wrote to me:
Is it to be the law of this country that the wishes laid down in my father's will, the terms on which he left money for the public weal, should be cut out, be ignored altogether?
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter. It is not in any way a matter of legislation but simply one of a small hospital which is a borderline case and one in which the Minister could quite well have exercised his discretion to leave it under its previous system of operation. I submit that it is not too late, that without the loss of any face and with goodwill, the Minister could reverse his decision in a case where feelings are high. After all, it has been said that the Socialists these days are greedy for power. Here is an opportunity to show that there is no such greed, and to carry out the wishes of a dead man and the present day family who gave up their money for this purpose.
If the Minister cannot do that, can he at least say that, so far as is practicable, he will try to carry out the wishes of the testator, and have the hospital administered by a board of governors of the type which the testator wished to administer it? The Minister has the opportunity to do the right thing tonight will he do it?

8.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I am grateful to the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken for the way in which they have put this case and I will try to deal with them in a similar manner. It is true that the hospital service of this country has been built up largely by private benefaction. There is no doubt that we owe to the kindly thoughts of people in the past many of the institutions of which we are now proud. I put it to the hon. Gentlemen that that was well known at the time of the passing of the Act, that everyone knew that we would be taking over large numbers of voluntary hospitals and that it was necessary in the Act to provide for how they should be transferred and for what was to happen to their endowments. Section 6 of the Act deals quite clearly with what is to happen about transfers and Section 7 deals equally clearly, I think, with what is to happen to endowments.
It is obvious that the late Dr. Kershaw was a very public-spirited man. Indeed, he seems to have been a man of considerable parts. I noticed that his views about Socialists met with the approval of both hon. Gentlemen. I was not clear from what they had said, however, whether this late doctor's views on ministers of religion met with their approval also. It is very difficult to argue as though we knew what would be the views of Dr. Kershaw were he alive now. Reference has been made to his son and to his will but in this respect this particular hospital is no different from hundreds of other privately endowed voluntary hospitals which existed and were taken over on the appointed day.
The hospital was administered under a scheme for which the Charity Commissioners were responsible. The Charity Commissioners did not in any way oppose the transfer, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) suggested that we had not acted within the law. Had there been any suggestion


to that effect the Minister could have taken the matter to arbitration under the regulations which he made.

Mr. R. Robinson: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question before he leaves that point? 1 think that my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) made clear our feeling that this hospital is in a different position from the others which have been taken over because, although the others initially may have been endowed by one person, in general they have been maintained by public subscription. I think it fair to say that this hospital is the result of the money of one man, and one man alone, and that appeals for support have not been made to the general public.

Mr. Edwards: That may be perfectly true, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong if he supposes that this is the only hospital to which such a statement applies. There are other hospitals of precisely the same kind. In any event, if we are talking about a matter of principle it does not really matter whether there was only one person or whether there were many more. Quite a number of voluntary hospitals which we took over on the appointed day come essentially into this category.
Under the Act the Minister had to answer the question: Do we need the hospital for the new service? It was said that the committee thought that the hospital would be disclaimed, and the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) rather took us to task because it took four months to decide what should be done. What, in fact, happened, was this. We did not take each request as it was received. We took all the requests and had to wait until we had the advantage of consulting the regional hospital boards which we had set up. That was a reasonable thing to do. It was no use taking the cases piecemeal. We had to have some idea of the general principles upon which we would work and we wanted the benefit of the opinion of those who were to be the Minister's agents in running the new service.
On the face of things, it appeared that this hospital ought to be transferred because it was needed in the new service. We did, however, seek the opinion of the regional hospital board, who expressed the same view. It is true that 16 hospitals in the Manchester region

were disclaimed, but not one of them can be said to be comparable to the particular hospital about which we are talking tonight. They were hospitals either run by religious bodies or, quite frankly, ones which we did not want. In fact, only by some queer twist could some of them have been called hospitals at all. It was really a question of need.
I admit to some difficulty in arguing with the hon. Gentlemen because, supposing we had said that we did not need the hospital, by whom would it have been needed? If it is said that it was needed by the people of Royton, which I imagine to be the argument, then the Minister of Health, through all the agencies established under the Act, is responsible for providing the health services in Royton. It seems to us therefore, that if we had, as we had here, a cottage hospital well equipped, it was essentially part of the provision which had to be made in that place.
It is true that the "Manchester Guardian" on 3rd March published a list of hospitals with their groupings, but I think it was erroneously understood that if this hospital was not in the list it would be disclaimed. I have already explained that we were holding all the applications for disclaimer until we could look at the position as a whole and ascertain the local views. As we approved the lists the groupings went back to the regional board. Doubtless it was the regional board who gave the list to the "Manchester Guardian." It would have been silly for us to put into our grouping list cases which we were then considering and in which we had not decided whether or not to disclaim.

Mr. Sutcliffe: In those circumstances would it not have been much wiser to wait until all the answers had been received and considered before publishing an official list?

Mr. Edwards: We did not publish an official list. Neither could we have waited when there were only a dozen or so cases of application for disclaimer. We could not have waited for the grouping of the hospitals, because the regional board had the task of setting up the hospital management committees for each group. It was quite impracticable for us to hold up everything pending a decision on disclaimer in these cases.
Therefore, the view which 1 am bound to take is that this hospital is not in any


fundamentally different position from large numbers—indeed, hundreds—of voluntary hospitals up and down the country, and that the Minister's duty was perfectly plain. He had to decide, under the Section, whether we needed the hospital or not. I hope I have made it plain that we could not come to the conclusion that this modern cottage hospital was not necessary for a proper service in Royton and district.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I understand that the Minister wants to use this cottage hospital as a cottage hospital. If that is so, for how long does he intend so to use it; or is it the intention ultimately to make it merely an emergency hospital and to transfer the more permanent patients to a larger and new institution?

Mr. Edwards: That point has been put forward already and I was coming to it in due course.
If the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentlemen are really sound, it would follow that we should have had to disclaim, I believe, the overwhelming majority of our voluntary hospitals. 1 do not think there is any reason to suppose that the hospital will serve the neighbourhood less efficiently as a unit within the new service than if it were left on its own. I think that the opposite will be the case and that this hospital as part of the National Health Service is likely to become of greater service to the people of Royton than if it remained as a solitary, isolated institution. There is a lot of public misunderstanding but when hospitals become part of the National Health Service they do not cease to be the property of those they are serving. I beg the hon. Member to go back and assure the people of Royton that this is their hospital and that it is just as essential as ever it was that they should take an interest in it. Otherwise, it will not be the success we want it to be.
I think the general intentions of the late Dr. Kershaw will be maintained. The regional board and the new management committee, as agents of the Minister, are under an obligation to have regard to the past purposes of the hospital in determining its future use. In practice it means that the hospital management committee, or the regional board, are not entitled

to divert it to other uses, unless it is absolutely clear beyond any kind of doubt that the services needed by the neighbourhood are able to be provided in other ways. One cannot speculate about the distant future, but one can say that the hospital will be used as a cottage hospital, as in the past. If the intention of the late Dr. Kershaw was that there should be no racial, religious, or political discrimination, certainly that intention will be fulfilled for there is no likelihood that there will be discrimination of that kind in one of the hospitals for which the regional board are responsible to the Minister who is responsible in turn to this House. Whether that particular control would accord entirely with the late doctor's wishes, I would not begin to speculate, but I feel that the kind of institution which the late Dr. Kershaw wanted will be kept on under the present administration.
I think it better for the hospital to be part of the big national service, with all the link-ups which that means, and with the specialised services and so on, than for it to be quite independent. I have every reason to suppose that the hospital will be fully used although it may, as in the past, serve an area somewhat wider than the township of Royton. I ask the hon. Members who have raised this matter to believe that we have acted in what we believe to be the best interests of the people of Royton. We have quite faithfully exercised the powers given us by the Act. I hope that any misunderstanding or any disquiet there might be will be allayed by the explanation I have given and that the people of Royton, recognising that this will still be their hospital, will do their best for it.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point I made? Will he say that there is no intention at all of changing the function of the hospital and no scheme afoot to turn it into a casualty clearing station?

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry, I had no intention of evading the point. I have made it clear that, without speculating about the long-distant future, it is the present intention to use the hospital as in the past as a cottage hospital.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty - five Minutes past Eight o'Clock.